70 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum October 12, 2024”

  2. According to Shine News, a site I am not familiar with, the Chinese just finished up the installation of a world record size off shore wind turbine.

    And if the article is accurate, this puts China’s installed capacity of renewable generation higher than their installed coal capacity.

    Of course the coal plants can run steady, not being dependent on sun and win.

    But this is still somewhat of a milestone.

    I’m willing to venture a wild ass guess that within another ten or fifteen years China will be getting as much juice from wind and sun as from coal.
    Maybe sooner.

    1. OFM

      Shine News has never been on my radar either. Exploiting offshore wind is a topic it seems. It sure could be a much more sensible proposition than setting up gigant wind farms somewhere in the deserted inland and trying to transport the energy to the coast (a failure some places in China to my knowledge). There were some comments about the limitations of offshore wind in the prior thread. The offshore windmills are maintenance heavy machines that work great in the right areas. The five most important factors for why it can work economically is 1. increased wind speed offshore 2. Better opportunites to put gigant windmills offshore in an overcrowded world 3. increased wind speed at higher altitudes (due to being allowed to set up gigant windmills) 4. Lightweight wind blades capturing more wind at lower speed. 5. Ability to put the windfarms in areas with different wind patterns than usual. It is not a fantastic pay off in most cases, but a guaranteed steady one in the right circumstances. And that is why there is no lack of long term interest in offshore wind.

      Admittlingly, the whole manufacturing process is dependent on super magnets and copper based under water cables. And coating materials like zinc etc. to prolong structures and avoid uncessary repairs. But that is actually more easy to cope with than some other high tech industries we have. The argument that windmills can not cope with high level of wind speeds have always been obvious. That a wind mill would be controlled to stop at storm speed wind levels+ is a part of operating wind mills. You can not allow nature to damage equpiment with a specified max tolerance. Rather than focus on that, why not focus on the advances in light weight blades and hight that have allowed a modern windmill to operate at steadily lower wind speed levels?

      Wind power can actually be scaled down to wooden structures and mechanical energy if asked for and be 100% sustainable (on land). But, in that case would not provide enough energy to make any significance in todays society.

        1. Northern Europe also has a lot of experience with offshore platforms, thanks to the North Sea oil industry.

  5. Continuing from a comment on https://peakoilbarrel.com/us-july-oil-production-falls/#comment-782018.
    Note how 3 climate indices representing the 3 oceans, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian all show reinforcing peaks across 2023 to 2024.

    Not sure what’s happening with the AMO data. The Kaplan SST AMO hasn’t been updated in a while, and the replacement for it, the NOAA ERSSTV5 AMO is currently not available so I couldn’t update the plot linked above, instead had to use data I had downloaded a few months ago.

    https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/AMO/
    Perhaps this has something to do with western North Carolina
    https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.html
    “NOTICE: NCEI in Asheville, North Carolina, has been significantly impacted by Hurricane Helene. Some products that PSL acquires from NCEI may be currently …”

    No one is looking at this too deeply.
    https://e360.yale.edu/features/gavin-schmidt-interview

    1. Speaking of AI I noticed Google has an AI response to searches. I asked about the difference between the Vera C Rubin telescope in Chile and the Euclid ESA space telescope that’s hanging out at L2 w JWST. It said they’re both space based telescopes. Seems like a pretty egregious error for a search result.

      1. Those AIs are actually LLMs, large language models. They generate output that SOUNDS like a good answer. It’s an amazing ability, but nothing like real intelligence. For example, 15*17= 275 sounds about right. But it is wrong. Tell me the name of a big modern telescope and it seems like a good answer to claim it it space based.

        For one thing, LLMs usually don’t check their output. They just blurt out the first thing that seems like a good answer. That is why they will correct themselves if you tell them to, using your objection as a refining prompt for another random guess.

        A separate problem is that LLMs completely lack strategic thinking. For example, a game-playing AI like AlphaGo uses a generative neural network to guess which moves are good, but also a component that evaluates the current position and judges its chances of winning. Then it uses a sophisticated minimax and tree-pruning algorithm to predict its opponent’s next moves and evaluate the moves it comes up. As in I go there, then he goes there, then I go there then he goes there … oops nope let’s try something else. So the program generates a list of likely moves and chooses which is likely to be best. LLMs just generate output and blurt it out.

        Those are just some well known problems that are being worked on. I am sure there are others.

        Mathematicians are starting to get serious about using AI to prove algorithms. One idea is a tool that rigorously checks math proofs like the language LEAN. It can’t prove anything by itself, just disprove things by revealing logical holes. But combine it with a LLM that blurts out likely sounding proofs and the two components might be able to come up with good new ideas in a dialog, possibly one with thousands or millions of cycles.

      2. LLMs can easily generate algorithmic source code that works perfectly fine the first time. That’s because they draw from a source of information that’s logically correct — already working open-source software programs and algorithms that have been well-tested.

        “Mathematicians are starting to get serious about using AI to prove algorithms.”

        That’s been going on for quite awhile. Look up theorem provers. The reason for that is what’s now considered standard practice was considered AI back then. But, yes, exploring new paths is the promising direction. Nonlinear mathematics comprises >> 99.99% while linear math is << 0.01% of possible formulations that humans are incapable of themselves solving. All that non-linear math that may drive all the weird stiuff observed but blamed on chaos or whatever is possibly in the realm of a yet-to-be-discovered non-linear solution.

        1. Paul —
          I was talking about creating proofs for new math theorems. There is no algorithm for that.

  8. ‘Electric vehicle battery prices are expected to fall almost 50% by 2026’

    Nothing magic predicted, rather just continuing optimization of processes and supplies.
    If it comes close to this result then affordability of the plug vehicles dramatically improves (especially for nations that don’t impose big tariffs on Asian sourced batteries).

    https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/electric-vehicle-battery-prices-are-expected-to-fall-almost-50-percent-by-2025

    1. There are pros and cons to bringing manufacturing back home. It takes a lot more energy usage to do the manufacturing locally.

      We can call being self sufficient a good thing . But then again maybe we should allow China to deplete the rest of their coal reserves. Drain China first wouldn’t be a bad policy. Maybe bad for the environment but like I said pros and cons.

  10. From Ruth Ben-Ghiat, entitled “Is Trump a Facsist?” :

    There Trump stood, eyes closed, swaying to the music, as the minutes ticked by and his handlers tried to salvage the situation, likely wondering what on earth had happened to him. He had started his Oct. 14 town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania, a town hall being an opportunity for people to ask him questions. Then people started to faint in the overheated room.

    “Personally, I enjoy this, you know,” Trump commented callously, as medical personnel wheeled people out on stretchers. “We lose weight. We can do this, lose four or five pounds, it’s okay with me.” Then he abruptly shut down the questions, telling his aides to put on some music. For the next half hour, he remained mostly silent, surrounded by his followers, as his favorite tunes played.

    Many observers felt that Trump was having some kind of episode, and the incident sparked a new round of questions about his stability and mental capacity. “It shows that he is increasingly detached from reality,” posted Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI).

    That is certainly true. Yet I also read this as Trump, knowing he is in the fight of his life, taking refuge in plain sight of everyone into a specific kind of reality that is familiar from the history of authoritarianism: the artificial reality he has created with his fortress of lies. During this musical “pause,” he was basking in a cocoon of adoration, standing in a protected environment of his own design. His eyes closed, his favorite music playing, he was in his safe space.

    As I write in Strongmen, “who would the strongman past and present be without those crowds that form the raw material of his propaganda? His secret is that he needs them far more than they need him.”

    The bond that Trump has constructed with his followers, and the durability of his personality cult, is one measure of Trump’s deployment of the Fascist arsenal.

    I stand by what I wrote in 2021: in some ways, the label of Fascism is too reductive for Trump, who praises Communist dictators as much as he praises the Fascistic leaders Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban. More recently, with his suggestion that the U.S. military could be used on “the enemy within,” i.e. for domestic repression, Trump channels Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet more than Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini, who had their blackshirt and brownshirt militias and paramilitaries and secret police for domestic operations.

    Yet it is beyond doubt that Trump has provided a new stage and a new context for Fascist ideologies and practices, many of which have roots in American extremist traditions and histories as well.

    Tracing these inheritances has been a theme of Lucid essays. From his corruption-concealing slogan “Drain the Swamp,” borrowed from Il Duce, to his elevation of neo-Nazis and platforming of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, to the Fascist spectacles that have marked his campaign from the kickoff event in Waco, TX, onward, Trump has intentionally drawn on the enduring appeal of Fascism.

    And so we return to Trump’s behavior at the Oaks, PA rally: the demagogue listening to his crowd acclaiming him is a staple of Fascist history. After Joseph Goebbels discovered that Hitler was a wooden and boring speaker in the recording studio and came alive only when encountering the energy and adulation of crowds, he recorded Hitler’s speeches at rallies and other public occasions.

    As for Mussolini, he would often pause during speeches to let the roar of the crowd wash over him, jutting his chin out and nodding at the visual and aural spectacle. Trump had a similar self-satisfied and beatific expression at the rally. It is perhaps no accident that behind the former president was a banner that read: “Trump Was Right About Everything.” Mussolini’s slogan? “Mussolini Is Always Right.”

    The similarities are myriad, and it was my knowledge of the history of Fascism that allowed me to see how dangerous Trump was from the start. It is telling that those who know the most about the threats Trump represents, because of their access to intelligence and national security information, are now speaking out and labeling Trump as “fascist to the core.”

    That is a quote from Gen. Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as cited in a new book by Bob Woodward, to consider alongside former Secretary of State, Senator, and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s labeling of Trump’s recent rhetoric about immigrants and other “enemies” as “blatantly fascist.”

    Trump is what a Fascist demagogue looks like in 2024 America, and Trumpism aims to defeat our democracy and establish a form of governance that would have strong similarities with Fascism as well as other experiences of authoritarianism. Those are the stakes of this election.

    https://lucid.substack.com/p/is-trump-a-fascist?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=300941&post_id=150304070&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=40lg8h&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

    1. I figure when Trumpism rots away in the back alley politicians across the spectrum got the message that a significant portion of the populace desires some home grown fascism. Right now that was enabled by the GOP but it’s a desire any politician on the spectrum can tap into.

      1. ‘You Would Be Worried If Your Grandpa Was Acting Like This’

  13. Renewable power prices fall in Europe

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Europes-Renewable-Power-Prices-Drop.html

    Barclay’s pushes for energy transotion plan by UK government

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Barclays-Pushes-UK-Government-to-Prioritize-the-Energy-Transition.html

    Europe vulnerable to natural gas supply shocks

    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Snam-CEO-Claims-Europe-Is-Vulnerable-to-Natural-Gas-Supply-Shocks.html

  14. Not sure if this has already been posted, but “Australia’s biggest coal generator AGL Energy has reported success with a ground breaking initiative that will allow it to shut down coal units in the middle of the day”.

    https://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-generators-are-learning-how-to-shut-down-for-solar-in-significant-boost-to-renewable-switch/

    From a previous article at renew economy, “It has become the key part of the debate around Australia’s energy transition: Will a future grid depend on the old paradigms of baseload and peaking plants? Or can a grid dominated by variable renewables and supported by dispatchable power support a modern economy? It’s a fundamental question, because those arguing that the life of Australia’s ageing coal fired generators should be extended and then replaced with “always on” nuclear power plants insist that baseload is the only way to power a modern economy”

    https://reneweconomy.com.au/absolutely-world-leading-why-australia-is-leading-the-charge-away-from-baseload-power/

    1. Thanks Phil, encouraging articles, so much better to use available solar/wind than throw it away…

  15. The consequences of AI are likely myriad, but one consequence is clearly happening and probably a surprise trend to most-
    the Nuclear Energy industry is getting a huge infusion of capital to ramp up new production.
    The big data companies are going whole hog on this as an attempt to meet the AI/data center energy demands.
    These companies are willing to pay high rates for the electricity output already signing contracts at well above market rates.
    The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Biden energy funding programs are also big contributors to this trend.
    On the Russia point that country has been a primary supplier of uranium fuel to the world, including the HALEU form that will be used in some newer reactor designs. Domestic suppliers are ramping up…Centrus Energy as example.
    “Nuclear companies like TerraPower, X-energy, BWX Technologies, Kairos Power, Oklo, Framatome, Centrus Energy, GE Vernova, Westinghouse, and Orano are all expected to utilize High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) fuel in their advanced reactor designs”

    Without the AI/Big Data push for energy the nuclear industry attempt at resurgence would have taken much longer to generate such activity.
    For better or for worse.

  16. Having a discussion with those concerned about climate change here:
    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/10/16/climate-risk/#comment-222571

    They all think that “At the point of net zero CO₂ emissions, atmospheric concentrations are projected to begin to fall quite quickly over the next several decades”

    It actually doesn’t and if we gradually drop fossil fuel emissions to zero over the next 100 years, we will still have atmospheric CO2 well above 400 PPM for several hundred years. That’s why you see all these active carbon reduction proposals, to try to sequester the CO2 that nature can’t do on its own.

    IIMO, it’s one of the biggest “deal with it” problem/non-problem that the world faces. Nothing really we can do about it because carbon removal likely will never make a dent. Just imagine unrollling all industrial activity over the last 100 years — about half of all the smokestacks and tail-pipes emitting CO2 have to be removed from the atmosphere by filtration and then deposited somewhere because excess CO2 likes to stay in the carbon-cycle system and not get buried in the deep sea.

    1. Getting to the point that people advocating most strongly for net zero in CO2 emissions are increasingly delusional. The guy that I referenced above that said that atmospheric CO2 concentration would “fall quite quickly over the next several decades” if net zero is reached, is likely trying to game the system by only cherry-picking IPCC simulation experiments that support his assertion. I replicated one of these experiments using the convolution approach and found out that the conditions were of a CO2 input of 1 pg of C accelerated over the course of 60 years and then emissions were abruptly stopped. In this case, of course, the concentration would drop more quickly, but this is not a realistic situation, as the CO2 is being introduced at a much more gradual pace and the reduction will also be gradual. In reality, if we ever achieve net zero, there will be virtually no change in CO2 levels at that time, at best a fraction of a PPM/year.

      The bottom-line is that these advocates are trying to sell a hopeful lie that nature will take care of things if we can get CO2 emissions down. The fact is that these +400 PPM levels of CO2 will be around for centuries.

      BTW, tried to show him some of these plots on Twitter, and he hid all of my replies. Check it out
      https://x.com/rustneversleepz/status/1847417633953763618

      There next step is to advocate for active CO2 removal, which has to be a debacle in the making

      1. This guy is a gatekeeper
        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/10/16/climate-risk/#comment-222581

        PP “The realisation is that nature can’t be depended to sequester CO2 quickly on it’s own”

        The fact that the airborne fraction has been stable at about 0.5 for decades tells us that nature is already sequestering about half our current level of anthropogenic emissions. This isn’t going to change quickly if anthropogenic emissions falls to zero because it is primarily driven by the disparity in atmospheric partial pressure and the concentration in the surface ocean.

        so nature is sequestering co2 quickly, and is expected to continue to do so while a substantial disequilibrium exists (approx centennial timescale IIRC)

        It’s interesting that the carbon cycle seems to attract overconfidence in simple models, even when those simple models are obviously wrong. Simple models can be good for qualitative understanding, but rarely for quantative prediction. Good idea to listen to the scientists that have spent their careers researching it.

        Most of them are gatekeepers — they whine and bully whenever someone comes along and upsets their little tea party, The above comment is so twisted that it’s both arguing for and against what I said.

        “sequestering about half our current level of anthropogenic emissions. This isn’t going to change quickly if anthropogenic emissions falls to zero”
        and
        “so nature is sequestering co2 quickly,”

        These statements are diametrically opposed, Sequestering is not what he thinks it is.

  17. Just want to comment on these facts recently posted here.

    https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/global-ev-data-explorer

    “In 2023 there were 9.5 million BEVs sold and 4.3 million plugin hybrids for a total plugin vehicle sales of 13.8 million. The non-plugin hybrids are included in the non-electric category and are part of the 62.9 million non-electric vehicles sold in 2023.”

    We are already almost at the point envisioned when it comes to EVs. If we annually produce 14 million plugin cars, we could easily get to 30 million vehicles per year one way or another. That could imply stripping down to affordable, small easy cars most likely – if there are resource problems. If we have 30 million cars produced a year that would give about a 500 million electric vehicle inventory as a long term projection (given a 16-17 year lifetime of a car). If batteries can be switched during the lifetime of a vehicle i.e having enough production supporting it, that would be enough light duty cars in total, would it not? 500 million electric cars servicing 1.2 billion people living in the industrial world western world plus parts of China and a bit of India maybe. If electric cars can not be more efficiently used than ICE cars so we can have less of them, then reduction of emissions takes the backseat in the overall “plan” the way I see it. Reduction to 1 vehicle per 5 inhabitants should be very comfortable most places given the effort to use more buses, trams, trains, e-bikes or taxis instead. Or simply have access to most of what is needed in walking distance in urban areas.

    Humans by nature and especially operating in this capitalistic system have a nasty habit of overbuilding just about anything. There are very many avenues to peel the onion of prosperity when it is deemed neccessary.

    1. Cars live so long because new cars are expensive and operating old cars is relatively cheap. Cars live most of their lives as second hand vehicles. The dogs lives on the scraps that fall from the table of their master, as the Canaanite woman put it.

      It’s strange that new cars are too expensive for most people to buy. Cars are pretty much essential in many places. Manufacturers have gotten away with raising new car prices year after year because the used car market serves most of the population.

      If Chinese manufacturers are allowed to sell their $10K EVs that are much cheaper to operate than a used gas guzzler, the dynamics of the market could change completely. A lot of used cars might get junked earlier than expected.

      The Western car industry may be standing at the edge of an abyss. I guess that’s why 100% tariffs of Chinese EVs has gotten so much political support.

      2. “If Chinese manufacturers are allowed to sell their $10K EVs that are much cheaper to operate than a used gas guzzler, the dynamics of the market could change completely.” ~ Alim

        BINGO!

        A few months ago I picked up a 3rd hand 2008 Toyota Matrix with about 140,000 miles on it for a song. Drives like a rattle; good mileage; great little puddle jumper. Gets me around at low expense. Anyone who can get an economy EV going, not an overpriced/gov subsidized ostentatious #DorkMAGAmobile, will have a large market.

        Amazon sells Audi and Volvo emblems to put on one’s Tesla so as to feel less public shame.

      3. Alimbiquated

        Tightening the belt when it comes to personal transportation is in the cards at some point. The way I see it, is that electrical transportation is the more long term choice of propulsion given that we actually are in the energy transition whether we like it or not. Toyota interestingly went for hybrid solutions very early on. I suspect having decades of expericence perfecting their edge making internal combustion engines is a part of their edge. There is room especially for small gasoline engines in the energy transition, operating with scale and knowledge when it comes to longevity. An interesting comparison would be: small lightweight gasoline vehicle compared to a small lightweight electrical one. I suspect there will be a longlasting market for internal combustion engines with small efficient motors for the private market simply due to cost, experience and longevity.

        1. I think what you have in mind is a plug-in hybrid.

          Electricity will be much cheaper than liquid fuel almost everywhere; combined with lower maintenance costs, EV lifecycle cost will be much cheaper than ICEs almost everywhere. But, some places will have limited charging buildout, and charging times are a problem for some applications. Plug-in hybrids are the best of both worlds: most mileage will be electric, but running on gas is available.

          1. Nick G

            I have to agree that the evolution of plug-in hybrid over time could be the weakest point in my arguments above.

            1. Thanks. And used ones are a great deal: a 2014 Chevy Volt goes for about $6k.

              That’s hard to beat.

    3. I downloaded the data for the chart and here’s my very amateur attempt to extrapolate the data, assuming the growth rate is exactly the same in 2024 as it was for 2023 in all regions. The extrapolation results in 25.7 million of what China calls “New Energy Vehicles” , BEVs and PHEVs.

      1. Global EV sales up 30.5% in September as China shines, Europe recuperates

        Believe the EV sales have stagnated narrative if you want but,

        Global EV And PHEV Sales Just Reached A New Record In September

        All electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles are doing just fine, despite what you might have read elsewhere. While it’s true that some car brands are having a rough time and others have adjusted their rather optimistic EV rollout plans, the big picture is clear: EVs are on the rise.

        Last month, a record-breaking number of all-electric and plug-in hybrid cars were sold globally, according to research firm Rho Motion. In September, a whopping 1.7 million BEVs and PHEVs were sold around the world, an increase of 30.5% year-over-year and 150,000 more units compared to the previous record set in December 2023.

        From January to September, there were 11.5 million EVs and PHEVs sold globally, up 22% compared to the same period last year.

  18. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/chinese-scientists-quantum-computers-crack-170043117.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJFyLaRIOcbFI_DCZ1pAOkkN2DKEvg–yhRvXoT4CFxrA-z8dKjZKhOfsPGU352lY3hTwPaMFJHgXLN1-Zmg2EFwqBvOElt4HXHcqzMGtc4KWWOfXtVmoieXTmc_eQWDmixmZSu0yaD4hJQ5ucJFyznXJJTbiPbhhK9sUNK2adZp

    Chinese PLA Researchers allegedly use quantum computer to crack encryption.

    The implications of not being able to encrypt things are massive!!!!!

    If true, all crypto assets are worthless.

    KD former founder of internet company MCSNet discusses

    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=252212

    2. Thanks, Mikeb. I have been thinking about this lately. A few months ago someone posted that after the collapse the only animals left would be rats and rabbits. I jokingly said I disagreed and stated that there won’t be any rabbits left. But yes, rabbits will survive, but only in Australia.

      Australia is so vast and its population so sparce that rabbits will survive there. They multiply so fast and when their last non-human predator, the dingo, is eaten for food, the rabbit will have the run of the country. And it is likely that a small indigenous population of humans can survive, living mostly on rabbits.

      But nowhere else on earth will rabbits survive.

      2. And who can blame the people? Who wouldn’t kill an elephant to feed their babies?

        This is a true tragedy, epic in scope.

      4. Canada is quite vast. Insects will drive you mad before you get the last Coyote off the tundra. Hunting pressure will push more animals into nocturnal behavior; mountainous terrain will harbor resilient specimens; lots of folks can’t hunt worth shit. Anyone who thinks they’re gonna hunt the last K9 off the tundra at night in a cloud of black flies is gonna die trying. People will select cannibalism long before they hunt down the last coyote; basic EROEI.

        Although perhaps to Ron’s point; bush meat will make a big comeback and large herbivorous mammals will likely be hunted to extinction.

      5. There will be little pockets of rabbits and coyotes left, and maybe even a few places where forests still exist.
        Places hard to get to.

        Extinction is at a rapid pace now. If you could hear it, it would sound like a train rather than a faint hum like it was before we arrived. Imagine north America with over 200 million beavers, and all of the wildlife that lived in and around the massive wetland ecosystems they created.

        We are deep into it… almost 1 billion humans are hungry every day.

        1. “We are deep into it… almost 1 billion humans are hungry every day”

          We’re deep into…what? Food scarcity? Food isn’t scarce, overall. Instead we have problems with income and wealth inequality, war, etc. These aren’t new problems, and they’re not indications of overall food scarcity or societal collapse.

          “In 2022, 1 in 8 people in the world were living with obesity.
          Worldwide adult obesity has more than doubled since 1990, and adolescent obesity has quadrupled.
          In 2022, 2.5 billion adults (18 years and older) were overweight. Of these, 890 million were living with obesity.
          In 2022, 43% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight and 16% were living with obesity.
          In 2022, 37 million children under the age of 5 were overweight.
          Over 390 million children and adolescents aged 5–19 years were overweight in 2022, including 160 million who were living with obesity.”

          https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight

          1. Nick…I was referring to being so far beyond the point where the ecosystem can absorb our damage and still be healthy for the web of life. Sure, we can squeeze out more food for a while, but the goal should not be the maximum temporary footprint we can create. It should be something more like a footprint that can be absorbed by the ecosystem for the long term while also accommodating the rest of the web of life.
            It is an illusion to think that human life is independent of a healthy environment. It may seem so now , but that is just for the blink of an eye in the long run.

        2. Yeah, both you guys are likely correct. Both Survivalists and Hickory. I really have no idea how it will eventually play out. Everything is just a guess. All we can know for sure is that it will not be pretty, it will be horrible and heartbreaking. But I am confident human life will survive. There will be no human extinction. We humans are too diverse and adaptable. We occupy every survivable niche on earth. But what will humanity be like a century after the collapse. I cannot even imagine. No one can. If anyone says they know, they are just delusional. Anyway, be happy and love everyone.

Comments are closed.