Is economic growth slowing down permanently?

[-1=e^ipi]

When you dominate and abuse an ecosystem beyond a certain point that ecosystem will deal with you.

There is no law of charma in physics. That is superstitious nonsense.

[eyeball]

Actually what will happen is that it will fail to provide leaving you to deal with unfortunate consequences.

Emphasis on the un in unfortunate.

[dre]

There is no law of charma in physics. That is superstitious nonsense.

It has nothing to do with Karma. Its simple over-utilization of the things that a species depends on to live. Nothing superstitious about that at all.

Edited March 13, 2016 by dre

[-1=e^ipi]

It has nothing to do with Karma. Its simple over-utilization of the things that a species depends on to live. Nothing superstitious about that at all.

Species need fossil fuels to live? Which ones?

What we are doing is adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, which increases global primary production and green's the earth.

[dre]

Species need fossil fuels to live? Which ones?

What we are doing is adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, which increases global primary production and green's the earth.

I doubt we could sustain our current numbers and projected population growth without fossil fuels right now. As for increasing primary production that's overly simplistic. Sure... CO2 is plant food, but if you add too much you could change the temperature, the amount of moisture remaining after evaporation etc.

The reality is that the sum of ALL of our activity is reducing the capacity of the ecosystem to support us.

[eyeball]

What we are doing is adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, which increases global primary production and green's the earth.

When will the benefits of this increase be realized, next week, month, century, millennium? Can you provide an estimated date that we can plan for? It's kind of an important question don't you think?

Edited March 13, 2016 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

The reality is that the sum of ALL of our activity is reducing the capacity of the ecosystem to support us.

Prove it. Provide your calculations.

Or admit this is a baseless claim.

[eyeball]

A picture is worth a 1000 calculations.

The sea which has shrunk by 90 per cent has ruined the once-robust fishing economy and left fishing trawlers stranded in sandy wasterlands

Story

90% of the capacity of this ecosystem to support the people who used to run these boats is gone.

Here are some more numbers...

Impact on environment, economy, and public health.

The Aral Sea fishing industry, which in its heyday had employed some 40,000 and reportedly produced one-sixth of the Soviet Union's entire fish catch...

Also destroyed is the muskrat-trapping industry in the deltas of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, which used to yield as many as 500,000 pelts a year

Source

It's been about 50 years now since the Aral Sea began disappearing - can you or can you not estimate when the benefits of CO2 enrichment will start to be realized in this region? When will the natural capital of this ecosystem be able to support the people and other things that live or once lived here again? Without an answer what use is a theory that predicts benefits from enriching the planet's environment and ecosystems with CO2?

[dre]

Prove it. Provide your calculations.

Or admit this is a baseless claim.

Read the article I posted about soil erosion... That's just one example. Then you have deforestation and overfishing. We are also quickly burning through minerals like zinc, coal, copper, iron, and aluminum, and gas. Most of these will reach peak production in the next century.

Edited March 14, 2016 by dre

[-1=e^ipi]

Read the article I posted about soil erosion... That's just one example. Another is deforestation. We are also quickly burning through minerals like zinc, coal, copper, iron, and aluminum, and gas. Most of these will reach peak production in the next century.

Okay, fair point.

[69cat]

Global warming is not near the concern to food production than is the desire for people to develope land. Pipelines spewing toxic sludge upon rupture is far more desireable of an event than what we do yearly to build infrastructure. Losing 50 acres per hour for lifetimes in the US seems a lot to me if the numbers are reasonably accurate.

https://www.farmland.org/our-work/areas-of-focus/farmland

But lets all instead talk about the disaster that could ensue if a pipeline failed and those 10s of acres affected that would eventually be restored.

As for CO2 fertilization and the Aral Sea i would think the agricultural production created by diverting the rivers that feed this sea and using that water to grow food is in fact benefiting from higher CO2.

And to address a previous post that made a comment that using agricultural chemicals results in increased soil erosion i would like someone to explain this concept to me. We conserve and build soil by not performing tillage. Tillage removes the protective organic layer exposing soil to wind and water erosion. Having something growing all the time on the land builds soil.

[eyeball]

As for CO2 fertilization and the Aral Sea i would think the agricultural production created by diverting the rivers that feed this sea and using that water to grow food is in fact benefiting from higher CO2.

Why would you think that, how would you prove it and could you use this information to provide the sort of estimates that economists and policy makers will need for making plans for bridging the gap between our CO2 poor world and one that's rich with it?

By the way, they used the diverted water for growing cotton not food.

[69cat]

Water diversions are used for agriculture and that is not just cotton, you need to read more on what crops are grown on irrigated land, though it makes for a good story to claim the worlds fourth largest lake has shrunk growing solely cotton.

Water diversion and water rights between US and Canada will once again become a hot topic like it was 20 to 30 years ago. Excessive rain fall in recent years has put that aside but we will hear about it again soon enough though this time labelled as the effects of "climate change" though the mechanisms remain the same. The issue of diverting water for agriculture is not solely an issue "over there" and has nothing to do with global warming either. People want their pretty flowers and strawberries and so these issues will exist whether or not fossil fuels are burned.

As for CO2 used to improve plant growth it is probably fitting to reference a greenhouse study when discussing a greenhouse gas.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Edited March 14, 2016 by 69cat

[msj]

Interesting post from a smart guy: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/02/demographics-and-gdp-2-is-new-4.html

With the growth in the working age population in the US kicking in again they will probably see improved growth.

So 2% has been 4% growth thanks to demographic reasons (primarily).

Will be interesting to see if this comes about thereby rendering the point of this thread nothing more than the recency effect rearing its ugly head yet again.

[overthere]

Growth is slowing in the West, but all the future economic action will be centered in India and China. They still have a couple billion people charging hard into a new and massive middle class. They all need to be kitted out in TVs, Hyundais, blenders and Oakley sunglasses.

So no, growth overall won't be stunted, it just won't be here.

It does not depend on energy or minerals or pollution, all of which are and will remain abundant. The growth depends on access to food and water.

Edited April 29, 2016 by overthere

[msj]

The growth depends on access to food and water.

So you're invested in Potash, Monsanto, Deere?

Or maybe you're more of a Weston's kind of guy....