NEWS IN ENGLISH « LIBERTA' DI PAROLA

NUOVO INDIRIZZO BLOG….NUOVO INDIRIZZO BLOG….NUOVO INDIRIZZO BLOG….

Pubblicato in CELLULARI, ECOLOGIA, ECONOMIA, INFORMATICA, NEWS IN ENGLISH, POLITICA, SALUTE, SOCIETA', TECNOLOGIA, VARIE da Gabriele Pierattelli il 16/07/2009

NUOVO INDIRIZZO BLOG….http://libertadipensiero.netsons.org/

1 commento

High altitude wind power: an era of abundance?

Pubblicato in NEWS IN ENGLISH da Gabriele Pierattelli il 06/07/2009

The kitegen concept: high altitude wind power based on kites. In this configuration (“stem”), the kite reaches altitudes of the order of 1000 m; pulling on a power generator located on the ground. High altitude wind power promises to be a low cost and widely available technology able, in principle, to provide amounts of energy comparable, and even superior, to the present production based on fossil fuels. (See here an animated representation of how a stem works)

Why should there be an energy problem? After all, there is plenty of energy around us. The sun beams on the earth’s surface a daily amount of energy that corresponds to almost ten thousands times the primary energy we generate – mainly – from fossil fuels. And that doesn’t include geothermal energy nor the perspectives of nuclear energy, especially in terms of fusion power. Just tap a small fraction of this energy bonanza that surrounds us and we can have more than we need.

But, of course, things are not so simple. We still rely heavily on fossil fuels for our needs and switching to alternative sources is proving to be a very slow and difficult process. Production from traditional nuclear plants is going down (WNA 2009) and fusion power remains far away in the future. Traditional renewable sources, such as wood burning and hydroelectric have very limited possibilities of expansion, while the “new” renewables (mainly photovoltaic and wind power) still produce only a minuscule fraction of the worlds’ total primary energy. It was only last year (2008) that for the first time the total power of new renewable plants installed outstripped that of new traditional plants in the US and in Europe (REN21 2009). Renewables are growing fast, but can they grow fast enough to compensate for the depletion of fossil fuels?

We have a problem of cost. That can be intended as monetary costs, but also in terms of energy return of energy invested (EROEI). As shown in Charles Hall’s “balloon graph” (2009) the EROEI of renewables can be considered as reasonably good in most cases (with the exception of biofuels). It is around 10 for photovoltaics and around 20 for wind. Similar returns are reported for current nuclear technology. These are good returns on the investment, but not as good as it was for fossil fuels in the golden days. Decades ago, the EROEI of petroleum was of the order of 100 and perhaps even better (Hall 2009). It was this high EROEI that led fossil fuels to acquire the dominance that they have today. Without that kind of EROEI; other energy sources haven’t had a possibility to compete. Today, we still need fossil energy to build non-fossil energy plants. But, with fossil fuels starting their decline, it will be more and more difficult to sustain the growth of alternative energies at a rate fast enough to provide a smooth substitution of conventional sources. We can think of an industrialized world that doesn’t need fossil fuels, but we don’t seem to be able to get there fast enough.

So, we are facing Tantalus’ curse: we are surrounded by abundant energy but we can’t get it. That is, unless we can develop a technology with a much better EROEI than what we have now. With a very fast energy return on investment, we could free the world’s energy system from its dependence on fossil fuels. That is, unfortunately, easier said than done. The internet is full of claims of supposed breakthroughs in energy technologies that promise a lot but turn out to be just dreams; or even outright scams. But there may exist an energy technology that can not only promise, but deliver a high EROEI and that is also based on sound physical principles: high altitude wind power.

The basic idea of high altitude wind power is that wind is more intense as you move up in the atmosphere. The average wind speed increases with height according to an exponent (called “Hellman exponent”) which is about 1/7. But the energy contained in a mass of air in movement increases with the cube of speed. From a simple calculation, we see that if we could raise a wind turbine to a height of 800 m, we could increase the power obtained of a factor of 8 in comparison to the same turbine near the ground. Even larger increases are possible at higher altitudes, where winds are also much more constant; easing the intermittency problem of conventional wind turbines. But of course, it is impossible to reach such heights with the current wind technology, limited to about 100 m because of the cost and weight of the tower.

This concept has been clear for a long time and has led to several proposals to tap the wind at higher heights. There are two possible ways for doing that: balloons and wings. You can find a recent summary of the progress in this area in the work by Big Gav (2009) published on TOD . As you can see, there are many ideas in this field, many of which exist only as sketches on paper. In many cases, the energy yield of the proposed systems is only a guess while, for those systems based on aerostats, the need of a non renewable resource (helium) is a considerable limit.

However, a few systems have been studied in depth and some tested in practical experiments. Systems based on rotors are possible and systems based on kites, in particular, do show a lot of promise. Saul Griffith of Makani Power has shown some images of a test done with a three rope kite. Wubbo Ockels, (Delft University of technology) has been also experimenting with a kite , this one using a single rope. In this field, the most advanced system seems to be the “kitegen”; a kite system created by Massimo Ippolito of Sequoia Automation , a company based in Italy. Tests on a prototype system have been completed and a first energy producing plant is being built in Northern Italy.

The Kitegen is a simple aerodynamic system: it uses state of the art kites which create lift dynamically by flying at 70-80 m/sec; this is the speed reached by the tips of the blades of a conventional wind turbine. In the simplest configuration (called “stem”), the system uses a single kite linked to a power generator located on the ground. The kite moves like a yo-yo: when it goes up, it generates energy that is transformed into electric power by the generator. When it reaches its maximum height, it is placed in an aerodynamically non-lifting configuration, so that it can be pulled down at a very small energy cost. Two coupled stems would work like a two-cylinder engine, although the “power” phase would last 90% of the time while the “pull back” phase would be much faster. A single stem could have a maximum power of a few MW. Larger plants could be operated in the “carousel” configuration. In this case, the kites fly at a constant height and at much higher altitudes, pulling a generator that moves on a circular rail. For a large carousel system, the maximum power obtained can be calculated as of the order of 1 GW or even higher.

Since the kitegen has been studied in detail, we can use it to make an estimate of the EROEI involved in high altitude wind generation. Before getting to that, however, let’s summarize the known data for the current wind technology. A recent LCA study for a conventional 3 MW wind turbine was reported by Nalukowe et al, (2006). They estimate the total energy input for building and maintaining the turbine as ca. 8000 MWh for 20 years of lifetime. Since the total weight of the above ground part of the turbine is about 400 tons, we can estimate an embodied energy requirement of about 20 kWh/kg. The turbine will produce about 160,000 MWh during its lifetime and hence the final EROEI is ca. 20.

Now, let’s see the results of a similar approach for the kitegen. According to Massimo Ippolito (data published on www.kitegen.com), the energy required to make a 3 MW rated power kitegen stem is of 40kWh/kg. The calculation that leads to this value takes into account all the requirements in terms of the materials needed: steel for the structure, copper for power lines, neodimium and boron for the magnets, machining, transportation, building, etcetera. This value includes also the energy costs involved with having workers at the plant and for the periodic substitution of cables and kites over a 30 year lifespan.

We see that the kitegen requires more energy per kg than a conventional wind turbine; this is expected because it is a more sophisticated machine. But the stem is much lighter: we are talking of about 30 tons in total for a 3MW plant. So, we can estimate the total energy requirement as 30*40= 1200 MWh. Assuming 5000 hours per year of operation at maximum power, the plant could produce approximately 15,000 MWh per year, or 450,000 MWh in 30 years. The final result is an EROEI = 375 (!!). If we assume a 20 year lifespan, the estimate should be reduced, but it remains large. For larger kitegen plants of the carousel type it would be possible to reach higher heights, tap into stronger winds and increase even more the EROEI. This calculation is valid for the specific case of the kitegen system, but other proposed systems based on kites or rotors would probably be able to attain similar large EROEIs.

Of course, these values have to be taken with a lot of caution, but this calculation should be enough to show us the enormous potential of high altitude wind power. EROEIs higher than 100, perhaps even much higher, bring us back to the golden age of cheap and abundant fossil fuels, without all the troubles and problems that fossil fuels brought. A further advantage of high altitude wind is that plants can be placed almost anywhere; another is that we can obtain a nearly constant output for most of the time (Archer and Caldeira, 2009). Although the cost of energy storage would not be completely eliminated, it would be much reduced. With high altitude wind, we might really have the kind of energy “too cheap to meter” that was prophesied in the optimistic 1950s. Not only we could have cheap energy, but we could also have it fast. Consider a conventional wind turbine, with an EROEI of 20 over a 20 years lifetime. During this period, the energy generated could be used to build 20 more turbines; an average of one per year. A kitegen, with an EROEI > 200 and the same lifespan, could be the “seed” for hundreds more kitegens, an average of more than one per month. With such a high EROEI, high altitude wind energy wouldn’t need fossil fuels as energy subsidy. It could grow by itself so fast that it could replace fossil sources well before we arrive to the last drop. That would also ease the climate problem by rapidly reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.

Now, of course, all this should be considered still a dream until it is tested and verified. But, at least, it is a dream that has some solid basis in physics and engineering. So, assuming that the promise of low cost and high EROEI can be really fulfilled, we should still remember that the earth is a limited system. So what are the ultimate limits of high altitude wind power?

It is estimated that about 2% of the Sun’s energy that arrives on the earth’s surface is transformed into wind energy. The atmosphere is not very efficient as a thermal engine, but there is so much energy from the sun that even a mere 2% is a huge amount in comparison to our needs. The total energy stored in form of winds is estimated as of the order of 2000 TW (Hurley 2009) or perhaps higher according to other estimates. In comparison, the total primary energy generated by humans corresponds to an average of just about 16 TW. So, there is no doubt that wind energy is abundant: according to a 2005 study by Archer and Jacobson, already at 80 meters of height there is enough energy in the atmosphere that it could be exploited by means of the conventional wind technologies to provide a total amount corresponding to the present production. But there is much more energy at higher altitudes and we need to exploit just a few percent of it to be able to produce enough for our current needs.

One problem could be the effect of high altitude kites or rotors on the atmospheric wind circulation. This question has been examined by Archer and Caldeira (2009) by means of climate models. The results are that tapping high altitude winds would reduce precipitation. Also, it would have a cooling effect and could affect climate. The problem would be minimal (around 0.1% reduction in precipitation) for amounts of energy tapped corresponding to our present demand. But this effect does pose a limit to the technology. It may not be advisable to use high altitude wind power for generating more than a maximum of around ten times the present production. It is still a huge amount of energy available for free and generating a very small impact on the earth’s ecosystems. It could even be further increased, indirectly, by using wind energy to manufacture photovoltaic panels or other kinds of solar plants. In the end, we shouldn’t be surprised of these perspectives. After all, as we said, we are surrounded by huge amounts of energy and if we find a way to exploit it, well, why not?

From these data, we could be tempted to see high altitude wind power as a nearly limitless energy technology. But that would be a mistake. Energy production is not static – it goes with the economy and if the economy is powered by a source of cheap and abundant energy it tends to grow exponentially. Exponential growth is treacherously misleading: we could find ourselves bumping into the ceiling of high altitude winds much sooner than we would expect.

But there is a much more serious problem in the fact that energy is not the only parameter that affects the economy. Abundance of something is not abundance of everything. Abundant electric power doesn’t necessarily translate into abundant food, although electricity can surely be used in agriculture in place of fossil fuels. That our problem is not just energy is confirmed by the models developed for the “Limits to Growth” series (Meadows 2004). The models can be run for scenarios that assume abundant (or even infinite) energy available, but the result is that the economic system collapses because of the strain on the environment and on agriculture generated by a combination of overpopulation and pollution. To avoid collapse, we need to stabilize both the economy and the population at a stationary level. Even so, the gradual depletion of mineral ores will make us depending on more and more energy if we want to keep the flux of mineral commodities at the present level (Diederen 2008, Bardi, 2008). So, even with abundant energy, we’ll still need to recycle materials and reuse what we manufacture.

So, even with abundant energy we still need to come to terms with the fact that the earth is a limited system. However, high altitude wind power offers us a hope of a future of relative abundance, even of prosperity, if we’ll be able to keep the economy and the population stable and avoid overexploiting our agricultural and mineral resources.

Acknowledgement: the author thanks Mr. Massimo Ippolito for his comments and input for this paper.

Note: the author is not financially linked to Kitegen Research S.r.l., the company which is developing the kitegen system described in the present article. He has, however, a small financial interest in “World Operations Worldwide” (WOW) which is formed of a group of of small investors who intend to finance the development of high altitude wind power, and in particular of the kitegen system.

References

Archer, C. L., and Jacobson, M.Z., 2005, “Evaluation of global wind power”
Archer, C. L. and Caldeira, K, 2009, “Global assessment of high altitude wind power”
Bardi, U,, 2008, “The universal mining machine”
Big Gav, 2008, “Alternative Wind Power Experiments – SkySails and Airborne Wind Turbines”
Diederen A., 2008 , “Minerals scarcity: A call for managed austerity and the elements of hope”
Hall, C and Lambert, J. G., 2009 (accessed) “The balloon diagram and your future”
Hurley, B. 2009, “How much wind energy is there?” “How much wind energy is there?”
Meadows, D. Randers, J, and Meadows D., 2004 “The Limits to Growth, the 30 years update”, # ISBN 1-931498-58-X,
Nalukowe, B. B., Liu J., Damien, W., Lukawski, T., 2006, “Life Cycle Assessment of a Wind Turbine”
REN21, 2009, , “Renewables: global status report”
WNA (World Nuclear Association) 2009, “World Nuclear News 2009.”

lascia un commento

SOLUTION TO CAPITALISM

Pubblicato in NEWS IN ENGLISH da Gabriele Pierattelli il 01/07/2009

In recent years there are more and more people realize the limitless progression of capitalism and its negative aspects, but are completely lost in the face to be done. Humanity has tried in every possible way to stem the problem, but a permanent solution there seems utopian, we feel powerless, and we resigned the game by operating the power.

Because we feel overwhelmed by a relentless problem that leaves us all liabilities? What’s wrong? Above all, what is the final solution?

“Capitalism is not intelligent, it is not right and we are beginning to despise. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we remain extremely perplexed.”

(John Maynard Keynes)

THE ESSENCE OF CAPITALSIM

We start with understanding the problem, because if you do not see the original core, we risk to continue to repeat the history of the continual adjustments surface that does not ever solve the problem at its root. Improve their ability to search for individual satisfaction is part of man. Look for the safety of oneself, of one’s body, their ideas is a human instinct, and each in its own way, is the bearer.

The research of power, the affirmation of self and individual security is in us. Not a bad enemy other than ourselves, and its meaning should be seen in the place which together with any other individual will.

Where is the problem? The problem is that the healthy man has not only this kind of instincts, but a vast rainbow of desires and feelings. The problem arises when the individual (or group) is in the island close to its goal of neglecting any other aspect of sensitivity to the outside world, to the will and wishes of others and to the whole environment in which they live. We all have the desire to express ourselves freely, to satisfy our desires without bans or limitations. Faced with the prohibitions, the charges and rules in general, feel discomfort, tension and intolerance. Individual freedom is a precious commodity and each system healthy social system should consider it as one of the most important, but not the only one. In civil societies, if a person has the overpowering desire to speak beating children is stopped.

The space for personal expression and should be left until it is safe beyond the desires of others, if my preference individual threatens the physical safety of others, becomes unacceptable.

This principle is the basis of all modern civilian systems, at least in appearance. The problem of capitalism is to put all the components of affirmation of self in the foreground than in any other part of life, is the progressive imbalance that is created between these aspects and all the rest. They have as their primary objective of maximizing profit, and any other aspect of life to sacrifice the first. Health, education, freedom, altruism, art, introspection, feelings, character, sensitivity, creativity, any kind of moral or ethical, every ideology … This creates a problem where everything is sacrificed in the name of maximum profit of a company or group in terms of economic or power, to disregard the human rights of those who are exploited.

As in the individual, the extreme of the individual and determine the self affirmation of severe numbness and signs of severe personality disorders, a company that has as a model for maximizing the life of power is sick.

THE WRONG TO BE ANTAGONIST

Most people guess the disease of capitalism, but fails to convey his feelings in a decisive action. Would a society devoid of individualism, aggression and violence, but all social and political systems that we tried in history have done nothing but move the centralization and the ways in which the will to power is expressed, without ever eradicate violence from system.

To weaken the capitalist system has tried to support groups that say they opposed to individualism, but it did not work. And ‘as if our life mission is to eliminate people with knives, and then just create a movement to which all should join, but we do it all using a small knife. Find and support a party that “is” free from corruption and the power that contrasts the dominant capitalist party is the biggest mistake we make. Because in reality no man is completely free of those natural instincts, so that the party lacks the honesty and meaning, and we waste valuable energy. Going to finish that, over time, the team also evident that we support her soul individualistic inconsistent showing in the face of his inaccurate ideals declared loudly. So we leave untouched the problem and we remain disappointed by the corrupt politicians and the mission inconclusive …

There is never free from the evils of our time if we imagine to identify individual research in the problem of power in this world. Attack and reject this search is naturally lost a battle that goes all to the benefit of those who by extreme capitalism acquires power …

CAPITALISM AND THE ‘PROGRESSIVE

The model imposed is: We all want more. More wealth, more property, more luxury, more safety, more in music, more power etc … Capitalism is the model of “leapfrogging” the increasingly rapid and endless. If I take more and more, will always be less for others. And to put it simply, then things will be taken. The next day, we must be even more cunning, competitive, aggressive, powerful and unscrupulous until, for some, the last step of the hierarchy of power, not even the resources will remain essential. Over the years, if we take this model forward-blind, pushing on the maximization of power in all spheres (political, economic, social, media), it creates a progressive centralization and exclusion of any other model. The world, with all its wonderful nuances, is shaped according to the rules of a company.

THE WORLD IS BECOMING A FACTORY

The picture that asks the contractor to political favors should be extended: Today there are financial groups economically more powerful than entire countries. Saudi Arabia, Poland, Finland and many other countries could be “bought” from private groups. This means that the politician is to burnish the shoes to the economic giant, and the decisions of a country are influenced by the dynamics of the maximum gain of a company. A private company and its management boards, of course, did not focus on the freedom of citizens, their health, their quality of life, their education, their serenity, justice and the equitable division of resources.

Worldwide, for those not in the caste of the powerful, the fundamental bases of life are gradually fading away …

The economic power thin distance from the political, public services are privatized and large economic groups and big banks create global networks common in infiltrating the media to increase the consents neimodelli of life from which benefit: For years we know the positive of rich people, smart, beautiful, aggressive and competitive, strong, determined, and instinctive, with the language and the ways of the flock. Over the years, the world is changing lifestyles losing its highest capacity as the individual intellect, altruism, sensitivity and models that do not bring consensus in the choir are removed from the collective consciousness.

The great economic and political groups seek to increase the power by entering into alliances, dissolve in other groups, joined or divided, regardless of the real needs of citizens. The city is taking away from the caste of those in power and his freedom increasingly restricted. Is imposed a system where democracy is made by the masses, which, unlike the individual learns the ways of life by the media. The only form of participation of the citizen voting is possible symbols, and delegating any decision within the political parties, all within a grid closer to regulations and laws decided from above.

STILL MORE ‘CONTROL AND EXPLOITATION

We have seen that capitalism does not auto limit: Any restrictions imposed will never have the strength to contain the long run every obstacle only to lose to the emperor in front of main importance to gain power. And we have also seen that every movement antagonistic to the capitalist model does not only increase its strength. Fighting its basic principles is a contradiction in terms, because these principles are also present in the fringes who want down. About slows its course only to give way to all other shark ready to attack voracious. Finally, all types of power and the media will have a single control group.

It has created a blanket of wealth, which accumulates power and money draining all that is out, putting the plan into the preservation of limited natural resources, human rights, not caring in the world of poverty, the exploitation of the weak or anything that is far from its enclosure. The deck becomes ever shorter, covering fewer people that are scanned in order to become rich and living standards rise to patterns of wealth and consumption ever higher …

If the first was not only the poor child in Africa dies without water, then it will also be the town tramp in el’extracomunitario, today is also a retired public fruga box in divorced or single who must pay maintenance , eat at the table of caritas, but not surrender to the model of phone. We see the girls walk around with seminude emotional crisis if they can not conform to models of the moment drawing aesthetic breast or mouth. These are young people who in a few tens of years we will govern. Many live in the grip of debt, in fear that a fine or an unexpected bill can throw salt on the paving. Tomorrow will be the exception who is not willing to do anything to live in a world of dizzying heights and surreal …

Then when the power is concentrated enough to be able to read independently, you prevent all forms of movement that threatens the powerful (strikes, demonstrations, public education, electoral laws) until you get to the repression of any military activity outside the laws passed by the caste in the name of governance, legality, productivity, and above all safety. It thus creates a situation of extreme stress where all the escape routes are closed. Only one message store: Become richer, it becomes like us, look how powerful we are protected and our ease, we are smart. So we all get to run to save at the expense of others …

In this process of centralization of powers to Italy has just ahead. All nations in the long run, even changing governments, are designed from the centralization. If there is a limit and everything is directed towards maximizing the individualisation, then the imbalance between the few rich and many rampanti exploited poor feel the cracks creating social tensions and suffering.

DO NOT TRY TO FIND THE POLITICAL SAINTS

When we say that the corrupt politician has disappointed us, what are we saying? To resolve this problem we have tried for years the political saint to save us against the other corrupt, and we have idealized groups who passed himself off as incorruptible and free from desires of power. Individuals at the base are all imperfect, and who more or less has its defects. Apart from pathological extremes of personality disorders of the great dictators, and extreme hand full of love of neighbor as the figures of Buddha or Jesus, the ordinary people are subject to the same individual impulses and selfish of all.

The problem is that the global system (social, economic and political) rewards and brings in the top buttons in the rooms of the most individualistic, shrewd, competitive, envious, aggressive, determined and insensitive. In the long run, the network control of politics, economy and media will select the container that those people suffering from extreme power that most of these defects. The whole of society, in turn, will tend to become the mirror of the laws and models imposed by a few among the most selfish.

A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT DEGENERATE

We must abandon a system where degenerative are the most selfish country to decide for everyone and help promote a new system that considers the nature of individualism, but not extreme. A stable system that is immune to the progression and the centralization of power, leaving freedom to all. We can not avoid that there may finally be sick, false and greedy for power that Brahmin chair of the command. But the laws of the social system, in contrast to the innate impulses of man, are not immutable, and can be changed over the years.

Alter the positions of power, not trying to find a holy man.

How does a place of power systems in civil and democratic? Citizens born after letting run, to varying degrees, by the authorities which can promulgate laws and impose them with law enforcement to individuals who will differ. The power of political rule is the expression of the public (demonstrations, strikes, regulation of the web, electoral laws, police, judiciary) and the information that people receive (read on television, sull’editoria on the web, on advertising, etc. ..). Acting on these focal points are increasing the distance from the citizen at the center of power which had acquired independence as a caste in itself. If then a politician also has interests in media or in the process becomes faster, and acts directly on the media to gain consensus with the techniques used to control the masses.

In essence who have a strong power can impose its will on others, and without too many restrictions express the instincts that we have initially defined, is the place for excellence from the most selfish and individualistic population. If we have a great beacon over the city, the moths will head there to thousands and fight among themselves to keep the place closest to the great light. We have tried to restrict the freedom of moths and to deny the existence of certain instincts, but in the end everything back as before … Why not take note of our instincts and do not turn off the light? More light is lowered, more moths are distributed freely among the lights of neighboring houses.

The principle is very simple: The economic and political colossus over selfish turn naturally to any centralization of power in order to limit their gains at the expense of ordinary citizens who have delegated the choice to others. Any system that allows any kind of hierarchy of power, where a group of people is delegated to choose from, it’s all’istinto individualistic act on others and determine, extended large-scale problems dell’accentramento progressive and exploitation.

There is no other solution. To stop capitalism must have a system with no power and authority. But what does a world without power?

WHY ‘THE POWER GROWS?

Until my selfish instinct leads me to take an apple most of the other evil is limited, but when some groups control half the world while most people live in hardship and every day 30,000 children die due to problems related to poverty (half the deaths FAME!) then the problem is immense. To act on the power on a global scale, we must understand the essence. As it strengthens the power in the world? What are the dynamic world that comes from the apple in the world? Because the selfish instincts of man are spreading increasingly to the detriment of the other instincts? And what is the essential reason for this progression?

The life of individuals in society is made of interactions: From other to me, and myself to others. Everyone can hear, decide and act.

The gradual centralization of power on a global scale is created when the interactions between men, in every possible direction, are mediated or controlled.

Acting: The more the right to choose is indirect, more individualistic instinct will have to exploit.

Receive: The more information we have are mediated, more individualistic instinct will have to exploit.

Is in a sense that another should not occur any control group, because it will be incorporated by the overwhelming progression of global capitalism, influencing such mediation to grab ever more power to the detriment of others. Every body brakes, separate, direct or organize the exchange of information and activities promotes the centralization of power and then gradually, the exploitation of those cascade has less power.

THE MONEY IS EVERYWHERE

Each nation is sovereign only in its territory and shall act within its limits, the money does not know barrier. Its power does not stop in front of the border states and the progression of capitalism operates worldwide. Put simply the law of money is needed in the world coming to politicians of any nation, while the policy does not extend beyond the individual nation. This creates rich nations and poor nations and increasing the problem in general is never addressed.

The problem of capitalism can never be solved by a single state, the first factor in mediating interactions of the world is exercised by individual states with different laws.

ONE LIFE

The United States, alone, could feed every human being in the world, while one quarter of the food product by the U.S. is wasted …

If the most poor and weak of the world, the one who lives daily with the problem of hunger, thirst, disease, had decided for herself, it is impossible that he would chose his own death and their children, this shows very clearly that there is a system that allows the exploitation, in fact a very small group of men, not only to eat and drink, but it can buy whole political parties, whole companies, or entire nations.

If each person in the world could decide for one, the issues of dignity and human rights, where all are equal, there would be a vast majority of people, especially poor and exploited, with an energy that would be huge for their choice not make their child die of thirst, not to be used live, to live in freedom.

Universal questions about the quality of life, safety, health, freedom, no man has more authority than another. No man has the authority to deny another the right to live, no ideology, nor law, bureaucratic process they can rise above the life.

THE ORIGIN OF EXPLOITATION: THE DELEGATION

Because we arrived at this point? Why do we delegate decisions to others, and those few who decide to all have been corrupted. As is natural for man, they preferred their individual security and wealth at the expense of the majority.

The problem of capitalism is born when we delegate a small group of powerful to choose the details to us. The problem is not as political or ideological choice, the problem is that we can not choose more than symbols. The mother whose child dies of hunger, in fact did not choose.

If there were not at all political parties and groups who decide the law for us, and every citizen to choose A, then also a powerful economic giant has no group to be able to corrupt, and there could be no exploitation of the weak on a large scale. All are free to get rich, but without any bribe from the individualistic instincts of man would not have the structure to degenerate.

All citizens of the world must decide directly on issues of universal and have direct access to information.

In the ancient democracies was impossible to decide every moment to moment every citizen subject to the company, then they had to create to create a chain of proxies to those governed. This problem no longer exists today, the technology could easily to any citizen of the earth to express their views directly to instant instant. We must ourselves be the first to look after our health, education, quality of life, our freedom. If we let others do for us, we have no assurance that make always on top of our needs.

WORLDWIDE DIRECT DEMOCRACY

There is no other solution, until we believe the need of a good father who decides for us, more and more people are exploited by the few, will live in stress, in hardship or even hunger. We must not imagine fantapolitici systems of the future. In building a new social system, as when the monarchy was the republic passed, it starts with throwing the first guidelines such as those on freedom and equality, then all details will surface naturally from these foundations.

All the problems of capitalism will be resolved without violence when the majority of the world or understand the heart and no longer delegate their lives to others.

1. Every citizen of the world is free to choose directly from the issues of universal rights.

2nd The media are a World Heritage Site, of any living being, and therefore should be promoted and completely free.

In that moment of capitalism loses meaning and the collective consciousness will recognize the place that has in the rest of their lives. And these things will be taught in schools. Who wants to be rich can do it safely. If the information is distributed, the social, health, freedom, education, and ‘education is guaranteed, then do not create a division between progressive and a mass exploited caste that controls. Economic power at that time is inserted inside the stable social structure with no possibility of centralization.

Who chooses for us, of course, has an interest in maintaining the power and does not promote this information. With the power of the media trying to influence the masses to let them believe that only those few intelligent and experts can solve problems for you, the media are free, it is impossible to go beyond the system of the world divided into nations, that we can not abandon our habits and so on …

SMALL STEPS

If we understood that there is a unique solution to the problem that involves the world, then every little choice we make will be towards that solution. The sum of a few small steps will allow others to make more and more rapidly by triggering a chain reaction. Let us not look for the political party or holy and not demonized as selfish, trying to promote an approach to the problem, without being emotionally involved nell’appartenenza at a party. The intelligence did not flag.

What can I do to start? Here are small examples of the basic principles to be disseminated in any network or channel free.

A: NOT DELEGATE YOUR CHOICE: Abolish political parties and think “problems”. Decrease the power of politicians, diminish their fields of choice and their responsibility for the choices more and more direct. Equalize their salaries with those of the civil service, to avoid any conflict of interest: No power to the Media or any company.

B: HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION: It should pass the idea that the free and diverse information is a human right and the media can not be used by individuals to control the masses. Promoting the network and abolish any kind of political mediation and control of information.

Even when the media were free, the common sense world shaped and molded to art for years will not change instantaneously, it will need some time to regain the sensitivity shyly forgotten. Young people whose personality is already formed in this period are those few years we will govern.

Then:

- Promoting all aspects of life that prevents you from being checked by the media and push to do partedell’educazione base of each child: The individual reflection, sensitivity, altruism, listening, cooperation, intelligence out of the choir , reason, culture, art, education, and freedom to express themselves in all ways, from events to declare openly their thoughts also different from those of the authorities.

- Be familiar with the technical control of the masses and what aspects promote control: L’instinct, envy, aggression, the cunning, pride, determination, competition, follow the authorities and expect punishment or control , the methods of the flock, the square and the public lynching.

The world will change in this direction, and no economic colossus move a finger to miss earnings. It is up to us individuals to do our best to make this as close as possible non-violent revolution or ideological. I have tried to give my contribution in this way …

…do your job linking this post as more people you could….

Taggato con:capitalism, fame, money, politic, usa

lascia un commento

Towards sustainable and optimum populations

Pubblicato in ECOLOGIA, NEWS IN ENGLISH, SALUTE, SOCIETA' da Gabriele Pierattelli il 24/06/2009

.

Defining an optimum population

An ‘optimum’ population, in dictionary terms, is the ‘best or most favourable’ population. But a dictionary cannot tell the whole story. Best for what purpose, and best according to which criteria? For OPT, a green think tank, an optimum population means, at its simplest, a population size which is environmentally sustainable in the long term, affords people a good quality of life, has adequate renewable and non-renewable resources necessary for its long-term survival and consumes or recycles them to ensure it will not compromise the long-term survival of its progeny.

Few would argue with the statement that ‘population cannot continue to increase indefinitely’. But how do we define the limit? Using a tool called Ecological Footprinting*, which provides a snapshot of human ecological impact under given circumstances, it is possible to throw some light on this question.

(* Ecological footprinting data given in this paper have been taken from Global Footprinting Network research published in the WWF Living Planet Report 2006, using 2003 data.)

A sustainable population for Earth

Assuming the global biocapacity and average footprint [F1] remain stable at the 2003 level, then, to become sustainable, the world population needs to contract to a maximum of 5.1 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap (without allowances for biodiversity or change of biocapacity), the sustainable population is 3.4 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap, plus a 12% allowance for biodiversity (but none for attrition of biocapacity), the sustainable population is 3.0 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap, plus a 20% margin for biodiversity and attrition of biocapacity then the sustainable population is 2.7 billion.

A sustainable population for the UK

Assuming the UK’s biocapacity and the average footprint of 5.6 gha/cap remains stable at the 2003 level, then the sustainable UK population is 17 million.
If the UK achieves its carbon footprint reduction target of 60% by 2050, then, all else being equal, the resulting footprint of 3.7 gha/cap, with no allowance for biodiversity or change of biocapacity, will sustain a population of 27 million.
Assuming the UK reaches its carbon footprint reduction target of 60% (by 2050), then, the resulting Footprint of 3.7 gha/cap, coupled with a 12% allowance for biodiversity, will sustain a population of 24 million.
Assuming the UK reaches its carbon footprint reduction target of 60% by 2050, then the resulting Footprint of 3.7 gha/cap, coupled with a 20% combined allowance for biodiversity and attrition of biocapacity, will sustain a population of 21 million.

Readers not familiar with such terms as global hectares, biocapacity and footprint will find these in Appendix 1.

Introduction

This briefing deals with assessing sustainable and optimum populations. It differentiates between the terms sustainable and optimum.

The main difference is that here we take sustainable to mean the maximum sustainable values of populations in simple calculational terms and which are often used in such discussions. This is dealt with in the first part of this briefing.

Optimum, on the other hand, goes on develop a more realistic set of numbers to explore and include margins for unknowable but assessable future events. This is dealt with as a stand-alone section in Part II.

This briefing is not meant to be the last word on the subject, but is written to stimulate discussion and to underline that determining future populations (if major population crashes are to be avoided) whilst not rocket science, is neither simple nor straightforward. It also implies that there is no time to be wasted in getting things moving in the right direction since, whichever figures we use in a given circumstance, there is no escaping the fact that world population — as the sum of the parts of all nations’ populations — must halt its growth and turn negative as soon as possible. Every day wasted makes the task more difficult and potentially impossible without increasing human suffering.

Part I

Background

Given OPT’s definition of a sustainable population, it follows that a government or other body elected to protect, administer and ensure the long term good of such a population has the duty to take all steps necessary to bring about its sustainability [F2] .

It follows further that the maximum size of a population depends on the availability of renewable energy resources, as well as the consumption of energy needed to maintain a minimum acceptable lifestyle.

Sustainability has become an increasingly important issue over the last two or three decades. It has progressed from an esoteric subject within a few scientific and sociological communities to mainstream national and international political agendas and debates. Such interest has been triggered by:

the continuing rapid growth of populations during the 20th century and beyond;
the increasing rate of pollution of the land and waters of the earth through excessive and ever-rapid exploitation of the world’s biological and geological assets;
the now-generally-accepted view that global warming — and thus climate change — is a direct result of human activity, and threatens the future of the human race and other species;
the growing realisation that collective human consumption has:
1. exceeded the renewable resources available to it and that the human race is, as a result, in [F3] danger of a catastrophic collapse;
2. by its sheer magnitude caused irreversible damage to many ecosystems and other species.

Although not generally accepted, OPT considers that it is indisputable that ii, iii, iv are all a direct consequence of i.

It is a logical conclusion from the above that the world population should not consume, in a year, more of the renewable resources than the planet can create (biocapacity) and data for this parameter is available for the period 1961 until 2003 from the Global Footprint Network.

Interrelationship between sustainable population and ecological footprint

The following considerations apply generally to any isolated population – that is, one that cannot import, or control the supply of, resources outside its domain.

When the total consumption of a population is less than the available biocapacity, then that population is sustainable; any increase in its size can be accommodated without invoking a reduction in the per capita consumption (footprint). When total consumption exceeds biocapacity, then any increase in population means that average per capita consumption must reduce. The maximum average amount each person can consume depends purely on the size of the population and is expressed mathematically by the relationship:

Maximum per capita footprint × size of sustainable population = biocapacity of the earth

The equation is represented as an hyperbola (Figure 1) in # which the world population appears on the vertical axis and the per capita consumption on the horizontal axis (in global hectares per person [F4] . The green curve, therefore, represents the relationship between a population and its maximum sustainable footprint. The data point for 2003 lies above the curve, indicating the the population was already unsustainable then. It demonstrates that the sustainable population for the 2003 footprint of 2.23 gha/cap was 5.1 billion.

Figure 1 — World Footprint

Nevertheless, it is possible for a population to live unsustainably (above the maximum) for a relatively short period; it can use energy resources by cutting down trees faster than they grow or by using energy stored from much earlier biological activity (fossil fuels) to make up the shortfall [F5] . When such stored resources run out, then the population will have only three options to fall back on:

to increase the earth’s biocapacity
to reduce its per capita consumption, or
to reduce its own size.

Since a is not possible in the long term — indeed the reverse is predicted to occur [F6] — then steps must be taken to implement b and/or c.

What is the future sustainable population for the earth?

The sustainable population is, in mathematical terms, a dependent variable — which is why it is represented on the vertical axis of the graph. The independent variables on which it depends are biocapacity and footprint (rate of consumption). Increase the footprint — and/or decrease biocapacity — and the maximum sustainable population decreases — and vice-versa.

It is clearly neither moral nor desirable to instantly reduce today’s world population of 6.7 billion to a sustainable level of 5.1 billion by, for example, dispatching 24% of each country’s population. It is, therefore, not helpful to discuss sustainable populations intoday’s terms. Assumptions need be made about conditions expected to exist when the sustainable level is deemed to be achieved. Thus, Earth’s sustainable population in (say) 2050 will depend on how much world population will be consuming each year at that time. This is not an a priori definable quantity, since the global biocapacity, collective consumption, expectations and behaviour of individual countries and social groups in response to changes in the environment will all vary over time. Thus managing population decline is like trying to hit a moving target.

The future maximum sustainable population of the planet is only definable subject to qualifying statements regarding the projected global biocapacity and footprint of its human occupants.

At this point, choices enter the discussion. Do we aim to reduce a) the footprint, b) the population or c) some combination of the two? Let us consider these in turn. To keep matters simple we shall assume, in what follows that biocapacity remains constant.

Footprint reduction

The global footprint is an average of a wide range of values ranging from 0.65 gha/cap (Afghanistan), through 4.8 gha/cap (Europe) and 9.6 gha/cap (USA), up to 10.2 gha/cap (United Arab Republic) [F7] . According to the GFN, the 956 million population of the high-income countries have a footprint of 6.4 gha/cap which is eight times higher than that of the 2.3 billion inhabitants of the lowest-income countries (footprint = 0.8gha/cap.) An estimate by Andrew Ferguson, Editor of the OPT Journal, is that if the 956 million people in the developed world cut their footprint by two-thirds, it would still not balance the effect of the lowest-income 2.3 billion increasing their footprint by half of the per capita cut in the developed world [F8] .

Population reduction

Based on GFN data, a maximum sustainable population in 2003 would have been 5.1 billion — assuming that one could live with the fact that around half the world’s people were malnourished and about 800 million were hungry. Since then, the population has risen a further 6.6% to 6.7 billion by 2008. If the biocapacity has not changed during the intervening four years, then the population now needs to reduce by [6.7 - 5.1 =] 1.6 billion to revert to sustainability — a decrease of 24%. In such a scenario, the assumptions are: the average footprint remains constant; any increase in one country’s wealth is funded by another’s further decline into poverty. Although the history of humankind shows this has often been the case, in a civilised world it is no longer an acceptable policy.

We therefore have a benchmark:

On the assumption that the world’s biocapacity and human footprint since 2003 remains constant, the sustainable world population is 5.1 billion.

Of course, this benchmark means that we either leave the distribution of wealth (or poverty — which ever way one wishes to regard it) as it is, or adopt a ‘Robin Hood’ strategy; funding the enrichment of the poor nations by reducing the footprint of the wealthy ones. Indeed, international aid programmes are a partial manifestation of this. Apart from aid, such convergence has a certain amount of mileage in it, since there is an enormous amount of waste in the high-income nations. For example, it would be quite possible to reduce individual footprints by at least 20% in the UK, just by making basic common sense energy savings and by changing careless habits. The government target is to reduce the carbon component of the UK Footprint by 60% by 2050 (which would, if successful, reduce the overall Footprint by 33%.)

Thus, a 20% drop in the average world footprint of the 956 million people in higher-income countries would enable the 2.5 billion people in lower-income countries to increase their footprint by 62.5% from 0.8 to 1.3 gha/cap while simultaneously reducing the global population by 33% (to 5.1 billion) as outlined earlier. This illustrates the swings and roundabouts of ‘contraction and convergence’. The trap in this argument is, of course, that it requires the middle income countries to maintain a constant footprint of 1.9 gha/cap — not likely to happen.

A further issue is that it assumes a constant world biocapacity. This appears to be out of touch with reality for the following reasons:

significant land loss is occurring as a consequence rising sea levels, desertification, general soil erosion and exhaustion;
ground water levels are falling dramatically in many countries as demand grows with affluence and population increase. China and India are recent cases in point.
Greenland, and other lands in the higher northern latitudes, may increase available hectareage as ice melts, due to global warming: such additional land area will make little impact on global biocapacity since that land will be relatively unproductive because of low average daylight and temperatures.
climate change, as a result of global warming, is more likely to ruin more crops and forests through droughts, fires, storms and floods than by improving more favourable conditions elsewhere.
attempts of countries to take measures to protect against such disasters will only increase — not reduce — their footprints since such major efforts expend significant quantities of CO2.
as our legacy of oil, gas and coal runs down during the 21st century, attempts to compensate for reduced availability of derived fertilisers as well as heating and transport energy by replacing these with biomass and biofuels will only reduce the land available to grow food. This process has already begun — as has the realisation, in many quarters, that it is not such an attractive idea.

Consequences of simultaneous reduction of population and footprint.

The considerations in the last section suggest that a reduction in the population to 2003 levels will not produce sustainable population-resource equilibrium since it ignores all the known trends of global resources in the forseeable future.

If we assume initially that the world will, in some unforeseen way, retain a constant biocapacity and that, in the longer-term, an average footprint of 4.6 gha/cap (similar to that of Europe today) would be both acceptable and achievable, then a sustainable population would be around 2.4 billion — roughly one third of the current level.

Alternatively, scenarios have been suggested by Ferguson [F9] :

If a ‘Modest Footprint’ of 3.3 gha/cap were adopted on the basis of reducing the 2003 carbon component of the footprint by 60%, then (with no allowances for biodiversity) a population of 3.4 billion could be sustainable.
With a 12% allowance for biodiversity, the sustainable population figure drops to 3 billion.

Since those two numbers ignore any allowance for the attrition of global biocapacity, then they must both be considered optimistic, especially as there will be a delay in implementing any reduction in population. The level of attrition cannot be predicted with any accuracy at the moment, so the choice of 3 billion has something to be recommended since:

It sets an alarming (if inadequate) target pro tem and therefore conveys the urgency as well as the magnitude of the risk that the human race faces.
It incorporates a 12% allowance for biodiversity which can act as a temporary buffer against optimists until we see the way the wind is blowing on the attrition front.
At a trivial level it is a nice round number!

Another option is to make a compound allowance of 20% for biodiversity and attrition of currently productive land (or indeed for inertia in getting the whole policy moving in the right direction) and quote 2.8 billion as the target population.

Therefore any of the following statements would appear to provide a good starting point:

Assuming the global biocapacity and average footprint remain stable at the 2003 level, then, to become sustainable, the world population needs to contract to a maximum of 5.1 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap (without allowances for biodiversity or change of biocapacity), the sustainable population is 3.4 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap, plus a 12% allowance for biodiversity (but none for attrition of biocapacity), the sustainable population is 3.0 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint l of 3.3 gha/cap, plus a 20% margin for biodiversity and attrition of biocapacity then the sustainable population is 2.7 billion.

It could, and will, be argued that new initiatives (such as GM crops) will yield higher future biocapacity, but experience shows that such improvements more often than not constitute short-term gains which then wilt as the downsides appear. In the case of GM crops, the higher productivity will eventually be overwhelmed by loss of fertilisers through declining fossil fuel supplies; lack of water; attrition of arable lands; soil erosion and desertification. Land needs to rest and have time to recover, especially when natural fertilisers are used. Whipping it on to greater and greater productivity will only bring about its eventual and probably sudden collapse.

Sustainable populations for the UK

The UK population as a microcosm of the world can be treated in a similar fashion. Figure 2 shows the green sustainable population curve linking the maximum sustainable population for any given footprint and vice versa. In 2003 the UK had:

a population of 60 million [F10] ,
a footprint of 5.6 gha/cap
a biocapacity of 95 million gha.

Figure 1 — UK Sustainable population (2003)

At this level, the sustainable population works out at 17 million without any allowances for biodiversity or attrition of biocapacity. The UK government has set a target to reduce the carbon emissions by 60% by 2050. As discussed elsewhere [11], this amounts to a reduction in the overall UK footprint to 3.7 gha/cap.

Along similar lines to the global case, this leads to the following statements:

Assuming the UK’s biocapacity and the average footprint of 5.6 gha/cap remains stable at the 2003 level, the maximum sustainable UK population is 17 million.
Assuming the UK can reduce its carbon footprint by 60% (by 2050), then, all else being equal, the resulting footprint of 3.7 gha/cap, with no allowance for biodiversity or change of biocapacity, will sustain a maximum population of 27 million.
Assuming the UK can reduce its carbon footprint by 60 (by 2050), then, the resulting footprint of 3.7 gha/cap, coupled with a 12% allowance for biodiversity, will sustain a population of 24 million.
Assuming the UK can reduce its carbon footprint by 60% (by 2050), then the resulting footprint of 3.7 gha/cap, coupled with a 20% combined allowance for biodiversity and attrition of biocapacity, will sustain a population of 21 million

Part II

Optimum populations

The above treatment begs the question: “Should we be discussing sustainable or optimum populations?” Since OPT’s name implies optimum, this should be addressed.

To start with, the set of sustainable populations comprises those at, or below, the limit of sustainability. Consider, as just one example, the statement taken from point 2 under Population reduction:

“For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap (without allowances for biodiversity or change of biocapacity), the sustainable population is 3.4 billion.”

On the assumptions stated, the sustainable population is any number up to and including the maximum value 3.4 billion. But where is the optimum value within that range?

The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines ‘optimum’ as the ‘conditions most favourable for growth or some vital process … the level regarded as most favourable’. From the latter part of the definition we can infer that the maximum sustainable population is not the optimum. Considered rigorously, if a population is at maximum sustainable level, then one more birth without a corresponding death tips it into unsustainability, just as a single drop of water added to a brim-full glass will cause overflow — on a different time-scale, of course.

An optimum population level clearly needs to provide margin for fluctuations. In practical terms, it will never be feasible, nor desirable, to control the world population precisely. It seems reasonable therefore that, in a real future world with a) no cache of fossil fuels to draw upon and b) therefore entirely reliant on solar energy transmuting into food and other energy forms on an annual basis, a margin of error be considered.

Furthermore, the biocapacity of the planet will vary from year to year, just as the crops in any given country do today. Prudence dictates that a world population living (theoretically) in peace and free of natural disasters (considered in Appendix II) should store enough resources in each year of surplus to provide for the inevitable lean years.

Since, for a sustainable world

maximum population = total biocapacity / per capita footprint

then, for a given per capita footprint, a 10% population margin implies a 10% total biocapacity margin (see Appendix II).

Therefore, based on the above illustration, to be sustainable we would need to produce 10% more food and other energy resources than are needed for a given year which, put another way, simply means that the world population should be 10% less than the number needed to consume the current world biocapacity. This, therefore, could define an optimum population — a number which takes into account the components of the catch-all margin or error. Work needs to be done (a good project for a team of PhD students) to evaluate or otherwise more carefully assess the contingencies that make up such a margin. Appendix II elucidates a little further. But subject to that more rigorous assessment OPT, when pressed, quotes a 10-15 % lower value for converting all the maximum sustainable populations statements made above into optimum populations. The example at the start of this section then reads:

“For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap (without allowances for biodiversity or change of biocapacity), the maximumsustainable population is 3.4 billion; the optimum population would be around 3 billion.”

Therefore to convert all statements on sustainable populations to ones on optimum populations requires only to divide the value of the ‘maximum sustainable population’ by, say 1.1.

Conclusion

The above demonstrates OPT thinking on sustainable populations and the values give a starting point for future population policies for the world in general and the UK in particular. Such a methodology can be applied to any country. But, because such values of maximum sustainable populations are based on time-dependent assumptions, it will be necessary to reappraise them from time to time.

FOOTNOTES

‘Ecological footprint’ will be referred to as ‘Footprint’ throughout.
Conversely, failure to do so renders such a government in default of its social and economic responsibilities.
i.e. within the next several decades.
A global hectare is the total biological production of the earth divided by the global land area.
In the case of Earth, such resources are in the form of coal, oil and gas which accumulated over 200 million years.
WWF Living Planet Report 2006: At current rates of population increase and consumption (i.e. business as usual) biocapacity will remain within ± 2% remain the same for 20 years and then go into gradual decline.
WWF Living Planet Report 2006.
A 2/3 reduction in footprint of 1 billion in the developed world equates to 2/3 × 6.4 × 109 = 4.8 × 109gha. If the 2.5 billion poorest people increase their footprint by 2.4 gha/cap (i.e. 50% of the aforementioned 4.8 gha/cap reduction), the consequent increase in footprint will be 2.5 × 2.4 × 109 = 6 × 109 gha, which is bigger by 1.2 × 109 gha and equivalent to an increase of 25%.
Private communication.
Numbers have been rounded for simplicity throughout this paper.
Desvaux, M.P.E (2007) The Sustainability of Human Populations.

Appendix I

Glossary of terms — taken from the Global Footprint Network website

Global Hectare: A productivity weighted area used to report both the biocapacity of the earth, and the demand on biocapacity (the Ecological Footprint). The global hectare is normalized to the area-weighted average productivity of biologically productive land and water in a given year.
Biocapacity: The capacity (usually expressed in units of global hectares) of ecosystems to produce useful biological materials and to absorb waste materials generated by humans, using current management schemes and extraction technologies.
“Useful biological materials” are defined as those used by the human economy Hence what is considered “useful” can change from year to year (e.g. use of corn (maize) stover for cellulosic ethanol production would result in corn stover becoming a useful material, and so increase the biocapacity of maize cropland). The biocapacity of an area is calculated by multiplying the actual physical area by the yield factor and the appropriate equivalence factor.
Ecological Footprint: A measure of how much biologically productive land and water an individual, population or activity requires to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates using prevailing technology and resource management practices. The Ecological Footprint is usually measured in global hectares. Because trade is global, an individual or country’s footprint includes land or sea from all over in the world. Ecological Footprint is referred to here in short form as ‘footprint’.

Appendix II

Components of a margin of error for optimum populations

If the mean annual food production to sustain the world population is say, F, and varies, on average, by ± v% then it would seem wise to store each year’s surplus above F (margin for variability or Sv) for use in leaner years.

Purely as an example, in what follows, the value of Sv is assumed to be 0.05 (or 5%). Add to that an attrition factor Sa, to take care of expected attrition of storage through accidents; granaries can catch fire or get flooded or food degrades if stored too long. This would also include the risk of extreme climate conditions (unknown, but increasing likely with global warming) which will swing local climates into unusually long periods of low food production [F12] . Assume therefore that Sa is 0.1 (20% of the margin for variability, Sv).

In addition to variability and attrition of stores (Sv+Sa), a further contingency is necessary since peace and absence of natural disasters cannot be assumed. Wars [F13] cause destruction of land, from which it can take years to recover. Floods, droughts, salinisation of land, fire and rising sea levels do the same. Without the luxury of fossil fuels to featherbed and insulate humanity against the rigours of such adversity, it will not be easy to rush foreign aid around the world in just a few days. It ought to be possible, from past records, to make a realistic allowance for lost bio-product due to both these additional causes. To make such estimates is beyond the scope of this paper, but the reader might accept an illustrative figure of say 5% (or 0.05) as a margin to provide for war and natural disasters (Swnd). Assuming no further margins are required, the total contingency on food production would be:

Sv + Sa + Swnd

If Sv is assumed to be 0.05 (5%) then Sa is 0.01 (i.e. one-fifth of Sv). Further assuming Swnd to be 0.04 (4%) then the total contingency, or safety margin, is ~0.10 (10%).

EMAIL THIS PAGE TO A FRIEND!

Taggato con:chimica, clima, ECOLOGIA, energia, evoluzione, fame, guerra, immigrazione, inquinamento, News, riciclare, rifiuti, rinnovabili, sesso

lascia un commento

Mobility and Pollution problem in Europe – see what OPTIMUM POPULATION TRUST SAYS!

Pubblicato in ECOLOGIA, NEWS IN ENGLISH, SALUTE, SOCIETA' da Gabriele Pierattelli il 24/06/2009

Key points

Rising fossil-fuel consumption for transport by growing populations is environmentally unsustainable.

Air travel is increasing so rapidly that population decrease would make little difference to aircraft emissions in the short term. Other measures to curb flights would be more effective. Long-term global population growth of 2.3 billion by 2050, however, given worldwide aspirations for long-distance travel, would increase the rate of air travel growth beyond safe emissions limits, so population decline would have a positive long-term effect.

Road transport growth is more closely related to population size, so population decrease in both developed and developing countries would make a significant contribution to curbing traffic growth.

If you take away the 1.4 billion population increase by 2050 (from 2007) which could be prevented if the world’s mothers voluntarily reduced average family size statistically by half a child, road travel could be cut by 10,768 billion passenger-kilometres a year – the equivalent of driving round the world nearly 269 million times.

In the UK a gradual reduction in population from its 2002 level, when OPT first recommended a policy of 0.25% annual decrease, would have led to some 11 fewer million vehicles on British roads at 2006 levels of vehicle ownership than if population continued to rise at an average of 0.45% a year.

EARTH: MORE PEOPLE, MORE FLIGHTS, MORE CARS, MORE EMISSIONS

1. HUMANS FLY AND DRIVE – SO POPULATION NUMBERS COUNT

It is now widely accepted that to prevent the build up of dangerous greenhouse gas concentration levels in the atmosphere – and to prevent a global temperature rise of more than 2^oC from 1990 levels – worldwide CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 60% from their 1990 levels by 2050 – much sharper reductions than those prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol. Transport is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, but measures to reduce emissions will be constantly undermined by increasing numbers of flyers and drivers – human beings – unless efforts are made to reverse population growth.

Among transport contributors, air travel is the fastest growing sector and the most damaging to the atmosphere: one return trip from London to Miami, according to Friends of the Earth , produces more carbon dioxide than the average UK motorist’s road mileage over a whole year. And because air trips are usually less essential than road trips, air travel can be more easily reduced in the short-term by carbon trading mechanisms, taxation and methods other than reversing population growth. Reducing road transport is less easy to reduce because road journeys are often essential – for example, for people to get to work where there is no alternative public transport system. What are the projected increases in air and road traffic to 2050, with world population set to climb another 2.5 billion?

1.2 WORLD AIR TRAVEL

In spite of rising fuel costs, the recent rapid rise in worldwide air travel shows no sign of stabilising. Global traffic increased by 7% in 2005 according to the Global Market Forecast 2006-2025 published by aircraft manufacturers Airbus, and is expected to grow by 4.8% a year to 2025 even with jet aircraft growing in size by a fifth and able to carry more passengers per flight. The main drivers of air traffic growth will be the emerging markets which are “regional economic powerhouses with large populations.” With India (population 1.1 billion) and China (1.4 billion) aspiring to western travel habits, the prospects for emissions reductions are stark. Every US citizen makes an average of 2.2 trips a year, while in India only one in 44 of the population flew in 2006. But if each of the USA’s 300 million people halved their flying, the saving would soon be wiped out by air travel growth in the high-population developing economies. China is expected to account for 0.15 trips per capita by 2020, and in India air travel is growing at 20% a year. There’s a demographic difference between India and China – China’s population is forecast to stabilise at 1.6 billion, due to its one-child family policy in the twentieth century, while India’s may expand by another 500 million by 2050 – more than the number of flyers in the whole EU 25.

By the end of 2006 the EU (population 471 million) had taken a lead over other continents. It is considering proposals to include aviation in a carbon trading scheme, though it was not clear if the scheme would apply to all flights in and out of the EU25, or eventually be limited to intra-EU flights.

Whether air traffic growth worldwide will continue at the same rate from 2025 to 2050 is uncertain, because new low-emission liquid fuels such as bio-kerosene are not yet available for aviation use. Some scientists maintain that the dangerous climate change ‘tipping point’ is lower than 550ppmv of carbon dioxide concentrations, so severe and lasting damage to the atmosphere will have already taken place by 2025.

1.3 WORLD ROAD TRAVEL

In 2000 about one in nine of the world’s 6.1 billion people owned a car or van. According to the Mobility 2030 report by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 750 million light-duty vehicles (LDVs) occupied the world’s roads in that year, with LDV numbers growing at 2% a year. With the average driver notching up 9,400 kilometres a year, a total 6,423.9 billion kilometres were covered worldwide as people enjoyed the mobility made easy by cheap fuel. But LDVs now contribute about half the transport sector’s C02 emissions, and by 2050 there could be two billion personal and transport vehicles on the roads, with the world’s drivers projected to be covering more than a total 70,000 billion km a year – if there is still available fuel. Transport’s resource ‘footprint’ will grow as transport-related materials use, land use and energy use all increase, according to WBCSD’sMobility 2030 report. Limiting C02 emissions from cars to zero is feasible, but “even under optimum circumstances, achieving this goal will take longer (probably quite a bit longer) than two or three decades.”

ECO-CARS ON THE WAY?

Small electric cars are already available which, if powered by renewably-generated electricity, make a real difference to road transport emissions. But hydrogen-powered cars are far from making a contribution. In December 2006 BMW unveiled “the world’s first production-ready hydrogen-powered” saloon car. The BMW Hydrogen 7 drives 20.3 miles per gallon on petrol and 21.3mpg equivalent using hydrogen fuel, emitting 332g/km C02 using petrol but just 5.2g/km using hydrogen. An encouraging development, but the new BMW is a heavy car that is likely to cause fairly high emissions levels in production, and to make any difference to overall emissions levels the hydrogen fuel needs to be produced from renewable sources. At just under £100,000 in the UK for the first model, it would also be affordable by only a few.

Changes which will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometre include new technologies such as lower fuel consumption, hybrid-electric propulsion systems, fuel cells, biofuels, lower vehicle weight and reduced aerodynamic drag. Technology is improving, with hybrid petrol/electric cars already in use and the possibility of mass production of near-zero emission cars by 2025 (excluding emissions from all stages of materials procurement, manufacture and assembly). Whatever the advances in technology, there may be a gap of a decade from widespread mass production to widespread mass ownership, because most drivers cannot afford to replace their cars after less than five years’ use. Cars powered by fuel cells charged by renewable electricity are also being developed, but there is scepticism that hydrogen cars will reach safe mass production quickly or provide an easy solution – fossil fuels are still needed for the fuel cell/hydrogen production process. What is also important to take into account is the amount of fossil fuel or non-fossil fuel energy inputs required to produce renewable transport energy outputs. (See articles in the OPT Journal.)

Meeting transport greenhouse gas emission reduction targets may be insuperable if population continues to grow by nearly 80 million a year, unless more and more of the world’s people are to remain in ‘mobility poverty’. Imagine the difference that better family planning and population policies would make. An expected world population of 9,100 million in 2050, it is estimated, would drive 70,000 billion kilometres a year – a more than tenfold increase. The number of passengers makes a difference, as well as the type of car they drive and distance they cover. If you take away the 1.4 billion population increase by 2050 which could be prevented (see Earth ) if the world’s mothers voluntarily reduced average family size statistically by half a child, road travel could be cut by 10,768 billion passenger-kilometres a year – the equivalent of driving round the world nearly 269 million times.Add in the benefits from reduced congestion in overcrowded cities, and the population factor becomes even more important.

UK: MORE PEOPLE, MORE FLIGHTS, MORE CARS, MORE EMISSIONS

2.1 AIR TRAVEL AND POPULATION GROWTH

Domestic air, road, rail and shipping transport in the UK pumped a total 152 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in 2004 – nearly a quarter of all UK emissions. Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions – between 1990 and 2004, emissions from aviation fuel use more than doubled, according to DEFRA, and this increase did not reflect the additional damage caused by emissions released at high altitude. UK airports handled 3.7 million flights and 229 million passengers in 2005, a staggering 76.4% increase in passengers over the decade 1995-2005. Given plans for large-scale airport expansion, the aviation sector’s plans to limit climate change impact by halving CO2 emissions per seat kilometre between 2000 and 2020 and reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 80% at the same time would, even if achieved, be outpaced by air traffic growth and current plans for large-scale airport expansion (see Sustainable Aviation.) “Without swift action to curtail aviation growth,” according to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, “all the other UK sectors will have to almost completely decarbonise by 2050 to compensate….Results show that [based on worldwide contraction and convergence of emissions] at an annual growth rate of only half of that experienced by UK aviation in 2004, the UK’s aviation sector accounts for 50% of permissible emissions in 2050 under the 550ppmv regime, and consumes the entire carbon budget under the 450ppmv level.” Stabilisation of carbon dioxide at 450ppmv is believed necessary to restrain temperature increase to two degrees above base level, and 550ppmv is believed to be the tipping point into dangerous climate change.

UK air traffic is expected to double by 2030, but population to grow by “only” 6.5%. So changes other than population growth are the main cause of rising UK air travel emissions – cheap air fares and the UK’s growing role as an air transport hub. Because air travel is price-elastic for non-essential journeys, it can be reduced by including aviation in carbon trading systems and applying taxes to curb demand by raising fares. Chancellor Gordon Brown made a first move to green taxation in December 2006 by doubling the fuel duty per passenger to £10 for short flights and £40 for long-haul flights. Britons are among the world’s most frequent flyers, however, and it remains to be seen whether a £20 increase on a long-distance holiday costing £1,000 will stabilise and reduce UK air emissions without tougher measures being introduced. And potential new flyers are now being added to the UK population at the rate of nearly a million every three years. So full are the skies above Britain that planes may have to be rerouted over eight Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Brecon Beacons National Park, among the few areas of Britain where tranquillity can still be found, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

What effect would a decrease in UK population make? It would help to reduce aviation emissions by curtailing the number of travel-hungry British flyers. Population decrease would also free up land areas and housing so that people could move further away from airport noise and pollution without the need to concrete over quiet countryside.

2.2 ROAD GRIDLOCK ALREADY HERE, AND MORE TO COME

From 1950 to 2005 UK population grew by a fifth – more than 10 million. Back in the mid-twentieth century, our roads carried just one vehicle for every 12 people, but now there is one for every two of the 60.5 million inhabitants of the UK, and in 2004 road transport accounted for 13% of all carbon emissions. By 2006, 33.3 million licensed vehicles were competing for space on Great Britain’s 388 million kilometres of congested roads. Cars, lorries, van, buses, coaches and taxis clocked up a total of 499,400 million km in 2005, nearly 10 times the distance driven in 1950 – and the distances travelled in England alone are expected to be 29% higher in 2010 than in 2000. But in a tiny, overcrowded island, it should be no surprise that space to expand the road network is scarce, with the marginal cost of land also rising: road capacity barely changed from 1995 to 2005. UK population density is the third highest in Europe (the EU 25). Recent reports show UK traffic congestion to be the worst in Europe, with alternative rail trave the most expensive and overcrowded European. Overpopulation raises the cost of scarce land and is one factor behind mounting gridlock: estimates for the cost of a 53-mile widening of the M1 motorway in 2004 were £35.85 million a mile. Meanwhile the distances driven have grown 16% [DfT Transport Statistics 2006]. Chart 2.2. below show the actual and projected population and traffic growth from 1990 to 2020.

CHART 2.2

Car occupancy rates in Britain have hardly changed in the last decade, and congestion charging appears to have made little difference to congestion: average traffic speeds on trunk roads and motorways fell between 1995 and 2003, and were lower in London in 2000-03 than in 1980-82. For more recent figures see Transport Trends 2008. Proposals to introduce congestion charging more widely are not likely to do more than slow the rate at which congestion increases, solving only the symptoms and part of the cause. By introducing fees for previously free services congestion charges increase the cost of mobility and reduce real per capita wealth. By 2004 congestion on the roads was already costing the UK £20 billion a year, according to the RAC Foundation – £330 a year per capita per year.

Nor will the atmosphere comfortably absorb the extra emissions generated by further growth in road transport: carbon dioxide emissions from private cars grew 8% between 1990 and 2003 while road traffic volumes grew 17%, and, according to Friends of the Earth, average carbon emissions from new cars sold decreased by barely 10% between 1995 and 2005. The greening of road transport is being constantly undermined by the arrival of more people, driving more cars and travelling longer distances.

2.3 GOVERNMENT ROAD TRANSPORT POLICY

The environmental effects of increasing UK car use include atmospheric pollution in cities (parts of London in 2005 had pollution levels above the legal limits set by the EU in spite of the introduction of congestion charging). They also include increasing noise pollution across most parts of the country – few places remain free of background noise from roads. Traffic congestion on UK roads, however, causes economic costs as well as environmental costs. UK traffic growth results from a combination of continuous population growth and rising prosperity (more car users and more mileage per driver within a densely populated and finite territory), and failing public transport. So bad have traffic jams got that the government has abandoned its 10-year Transport Plan, recognising that it would fail to meet its target to cut traffic congestion by more than 6 per cent between 2001 and 2011.

THE DENSITY FALLACY

UK transport policy is beginning to switch from a predict-and-provide road-building programme to attempts to curb traffic by road pricing and other taxes. There is still an apparent belief, however, that increased population size will (if the additional 10 million people expected by 2074 are accommodated in high-density developments) reduce transport needs if concentrated at higher population densities. This is true up to a point – if there is good local public transport available – but it brings with it a lack of freedom to move further afield, which many feel to be a deterioration in their quality of life. Population size is a bigger determining factor than population density: Norway’s dispersed 4.7 million people drive fewer total kilometres than the UK’s 60.5 million people, and China’s 1.4 billion people will soon dwarf the UK’s road transport use.

In June 2005 Transport Secretary Alastair Darling admitted that changes to road transport policy were needed to prevent ‘complete gridlock’, and unveiled proposals to replace fuel tax and possibly road tax with a satellite-operated, distance-based road charging system which would cost motorists up to £1.30 a mile to use UK roads. The rate would be varied according to time of travel and routes used, to encourage motorists to avoid peak travel times and busy roads. Pilot schemes are planned before wider introduction in 2020-2030. The Treasury-backed Eddington Transport Study of 2006 estimates that the benefits of road pricing would reach £28 billion a year by 2025. Seen as a tax, the proposed national charging system is meeting fierce resistance from voters who have no real alternative way to travel – travelling by rail is also becoming more expensive, with further fare rises in the pipeline, and a combination of savage cuts in the national rail network in the 1960s and suburban sprawl caused by population growth means that millions of commuters do not live within easy distance of a railway station.

The government has introduced its first green taxes to make drivers switch from high-emission to low-emission cars. In November 2006 Chancellor Gordon Brown raised the price of the “tax disc” (annual vehicle excise duty) on the most polluting categories of car to a top rate of £215 from the standard £175, and a decline in sales of SUVs indicates that drivers have taken notice of both rising taxes and the unpopular environmental profile of urban gas-guzzling cars.

3. NEEDED: A POPULATION POLICY TO SUPPORT TRANSPORT POLICY

No mention has been made by the government of the need to reverse its pro-growth population policy, which is constantly increasing the number of people in the UK, and therefore the number of potential drivers and vehicles on the roads. UK population has already grown by half since 1900 and more than a fifth between 1950 and 2006. Our numbers are being allowed to increase by more than 320,000 a year and are officially projected to grow by a further 10 million by 2074 – unless action is taken to reverse the trend. Ten million more people, at current ownership rates, means more than five million more cars, with greater envronmental damage as well as rising congestion costs to the economy. The additional population would also mean covering an area greater than London with housing and other types of infrastructure, effectively removing this area from existing transport use or pushing up the price of land to levels where the public transport projects needed to reduce road transport become unviable.

Gridlock is here – so why allow the UK to become even more crowded. Will anyone be able to move in a country with 70 million people and 40 million cars? Why not stabilise population and allow it to reduce gradually, supporting sustainable transport policies rather than undoing them?

4. THE TRANSPORT BENEFITS OF POPULATION DECLINE

Chart 4.2 below shows that a population decrease of 6.7 million from its 2002 level of 59.3 million (when OPT first recommended a policy of population decrease), to 52.6 million in 2050, at the 2006 vehicle ownership rate, would have removed about a million vehicles from the the UK’s congested roads by 2050. In the four years that have passed since, population, vehicle ownership and distances travelled have all continued to rise. To achieve the same 2050 result starting from 2007, the rate of population decrease would have to be more steep.

CHART 4.1

CHART 4.2

If the ratio of licensed vehicles to the population per capita were to change from its 2006 level, or the average distance travelled per capita, these projections would need to be altered accordingly.

MORE INFORMATION

Road transport in the UK accounted for consumption of 38.1 million tonnes of oil in 2005, compared with 28 million tonnes in 1970, with rail transport accounting for 0.8mt (1970: 1.2mt); water transport 1.3mt (1970: 1.3mt); and aviation 12.5mt (1970 5.2mt). <[2005 figures from Table 3.1, Transport Statistics Great Britain 2006, DfT]

Thirty per cent of people in England and Wales are adversely affected by noise from road traffic. [Trend 8.7a, Transport Trends 2004, Department for Transport, 2 December 2004]

Greater car use is increasing carbon emissions [Independent Transport Commission, an independent think tank]. This is exacerbated by the catalytic converters now used on cars to curb emissions of gases such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile hydrocarbons – they convert these harmful gases into ‘less harmful’ carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen. The Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment maintained that road transport carbon emissions will reduce slightly from 31Mt (megatonnes) in 2000 to 29Mt in 2010 and 24-31.4Mt in 2020, due to the take-up of greener cars. This compares with the government’s Climate Change Programme forecasts of 37Mt in 2010 and 42Mt in 2020.

Expectations of clean-energy motor transport are over-optimistic. For example, hydrogen power requires other sources of energy to produce the hydrogen. See OPT Journal, April 2002: Verdict on the Hydrogen Experiment.

Road journey times rose by an average of more than 16 per cent between 1998 and 2002. A journey from London to Leeds which took 2hrs 40 mins in 1998 was forecast to rise to 3hrs 33 mins by 2006. [Trafficmaster].

The £5.5 billion road-widening plan for Britain’s major roads announced in December 2002 was not expected to ease congestion unless charging is imposed. [Commission for Integrated Transport]

Increasing traffic congestion is partly caused by a haphazard spread of low-density housing which makes the provision of convenient public transport difficult and uneconomic. As population and urban sprawl increase, so do the distances and hours travelled by shoppers and commuters. Yet:

Planned transport investment could create super-suburbs 100 miles or more from cities, swallowing up more villages and countryside. [Independent Transport Commission, October 2002]

It has been calculated [Halcrow engineering consultancy, 2002] that Britain would need 1,000 miles of new motorways and dual carriageways to cater for traffic growth by 2031, to absorb projected traffic increase of 46 per cent [RAC]. (These calculations were based on demographic forecasts that are now known to have underestimated population growth.) This would fill 25 square miles of countryside.

See Sustainable numbers for suggested starting points on which global population policy studies can be based,Fertility for suggested family planning and reproductive health policies, Migration for migration policies, andPopulation policy projections for a demographic alternative for the UK.

Optimum Population Trust Ltd, 12 Meadowgate, Urmston, Manchester M41 9LB, UK
Tel: 020 8123 9116 email: info@optimumpopulation.org

Taggato con:cervello, clima, evoluzione, immigrazione, invecchiamento, mobilità, News, sesso

lascia un commento

LIBERTA' DI PAROLA

NUOVO INDIRIZZO BLOG….NUOVO INDIRIZZO BLOG….NUOVO INDIRIZZO BLOG….

High altitude wind power: an era of abundance?

References

SOLUTION TO CAPITALISM

Because we feel overwhelmed by a relentless problem that leaves us all liabilities? What’s wrong? Above all, what is the final solution?

“Capitalism is not intelligent, it is not right and we are beginning to despise. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we remain extremely perplexed.”

(John Maynard Keynes)

Towards sustainable and optimum populations

.

.

Defining an optimum population

A sustainable population for Earth

A sustainable population for the UK

Introduction

Part I

Background

Interrelationship between sustainable population and ecological footprint

What is the future sustainable population for the earth?

Footprint reduction

Population reduction

Consequences of simultaneous reduction of population and footprint.

Sustainable populations for the UK

Part II

Optimum populations

Conclusion

FOOTNOTES

Appendix I

Glossary of terms — taken from the Global Footprint Network website

Appendix II

Components of a margin of error for optimum populations

EMAIL THIS PAGE TO A FRIEND!

Mobility and Pollution problem in Europe – see what OPTIMUM POPULATION TRUST SAYS!

Key points

EARTH: MORE PEOPLE, MORE FLIGHTS, MORE CARS, MORE EMISSIONS

1. HUMANS FLY AND DRIVE – SO POPULATION NUMBERS COUNT

1.2 WORLD AIR TRAVEL

1.3 WORLD ROAD TRAVEL

ECO-CARS ON THE WAY?

UK: MORE PEOPLE, MORE FLIGHTS, MORE CARS, MORE EMISSIONS

2.1 AIR TRAVEL AND POPULATION GROWTH

2.2 ROAD GRIDLOCK ALREADY HERE, AND MORE TO COME

CHART 2.2

2.3 GOVERNMENT ROAD TRANSPORT POLICY

THE DENSITY FALLACY

3. NEEDED: A POPULATION POLICY TO SUPPORT TRANSPORT POLICY

4. THE TRANSPORT BENEFITS OF POPULATION DECLINE

CHART 4.1

CHART 4.2

MORE INFORMATION

Thirty per cent of people in England and Wales are adversely affected by noise from road traffic. [Trend 8.7a, Transport Trends 2004, Department for Transport, 2 December 2004]

Expectations of clean-energy motor transport are over-optimistic. For example, hydrogen power requires other sources of energy to produce the hydrogen. See OPT Journal, April 2002: Verdict on the Hydrogen Experiment.

Road journey times rose by an average of more than 16 per cent between 1998 and 2002. A journey from London to Leeds which took 2hrs 40 mins in 1998 was forecast to rise to 3hrs 33 mins by 2006. [Trafficmaster].

The £5.5 billion road-widening plan for Britain’s major roads announced in December 2002 was not expected to ease congestion unless charging is imposed. [Commission for Integrated Transport]

Increasing traffic congestion is partly caused by a haphazard spread of low-density housing which makes the provision of convenient public transport difficult and uneconomic. As population and urban sprawl increase, so do the distances and hours travelled by shoppers and commuters. Yet:

Planned transport investment could create super-suburbs 100 miles or more from cities, swallowing up more villages and countryside. [Independent Transport Commission, October 2002]

WIKIO

SEGNALA SITO

CERCA

ARCHIVIO

META TAG

+20

SITOCONSIGLIATO

STAT

CATEGORIE

Blog Stats

Post più letti

Categorie

POST PIU' CLICCATI

TAG PIU’ UTILIZZATI

IMPORTANTE !

RISPOSTE A TUTTO