UTES - Energy and the Impact of Incipient Shortages on Cities and Urbanization
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- William Rees, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Applied Science, School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia
Abstract:
Modern cities, particularly mega-cities, are arguably a product of fossil fuels (FF) and remain dependent on FF both for new construction and for continuous supplies of food, consumer goods, and the materials needed even for basic maintenance, imported from all over the world. But FFs are the principal enabler of ecological overshoot and its many symptoms, including climate change. Burning FFs is a major source of carbon dioxide, the most important anthropogenic driver of global warming. Avoiding accelerating and potentially disastrous climate change therefore requires the decarbonization of the economy. Problematically, there are, as yet, no quantitatively adequate substitutes for FF in many essential uses, including bulk transportation and agriculture. This has major implications for cities. Rapid decarbonization (at least 8%/yr ) risks inadequate energy supplies, broken supply lines, and food and other resource shortages. In some cases this in turn implies local famines, civil unrest, abandoned cities, mass migrations, collapsed economies and political chaos. On the other hand, if the world continues its intensive use of FF we risk more and longer heat waves/droughts, melting permafrost, methane releases, water shortages, failing agriculture, local famines, rising sea levels, increased flooding (and eventual loss) of certain coastal cities, mass migrations, collapsed economies and geopolitical chaos. In these circumstances, what measures should the world be taking to limit climate change and other manifestations of overshoot? What is the appropriate policy advice to politicians and other decision makers?
Speaker Biography:
William Rees, PhD, FRSC, is a population ecologist, ecological economist, Professor Emeritus and former Director of the University of British Columbia’s School of Community and Regional Planning. His research focuses on the biophysical requirements for sustainability and the implications of global ecological trends for the human prospect. He has special interests in cities as particularly vulnerable components of the human ecosystem and in psycho-cognitive barriers to rational ‘environmental’ behavior, including sound public policy for sustainability. Prof Rees is perhaps best known as the originator and co-developer of ‘ecological footprint analysis’ which shows that the world is in far overshoot-we would need four Earth-like planets to support just the present world population at North American material standards. Dr Rees has authored hundreds of peer reviewed and popular articles on these topics. He is a founding member and former President of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics; a founding Director of the One Earth Initiative; a Fellow of the Post-Carbon Institute and Associate Fellow of the Great Transition Initiative. Internationally recognized, Prof Rees is a Fellow of Royal Society of Canada, recipient of a Trudeau Foundation Fellowship and both the international Boulding Prize in Ecological Economics and a Blue Planet Prize (jointly with his former student, Dr Mathis Wackernagel). From 2014 to 2019 Dr Rees was a full member of the Club of Rome; in 2015 he received the 2015 Herman Daly award from the US Society for Ecological Economics; and, in 2016, was awarded a Dean’s Medal of Distinction from UBC’s Faculty of Applied Science. 
Развлечения
Five months and six comments. So you’ve got one of the best minds in ecological economics and overshoot and he’s telling people there’s a major problem. I guess for me, it probably shows how big the problem is that so few people are listening to what he’s got to say. This doesn’t bode well.
I read The Long Emergency. As I understand it, Peak oil discoveries on the planet was known around 1948. The math was pretty simple by 1956 when reported global peak oil production would be around 23 years ago. It was around 2006, as far as I know.
Climate projections projected a crisis of civilization about the year 2025 in 1979.
I suspect we are lucky to keep the die-off away by keeping the fossil-fuel use going this long.
Insurance companies are leaving states as predicable. 10 years ago, someone was going around telling whoever would listen, we would not have insurance for the world of chaos we now see about us.
WASF.
I agree with others who say it is a predicament and not a problem. Problems, in theory, are solvable. We have put ourselves in our own self-created Kobayashi Maru...
@@Mike80528No-one wants to hear that rhey have to spend less money than they make, either. But in the end, everyone does.
I used to be a cornucopian techno optimist. Now I'm a Malthusiam doomer.
Dr. Rees is on point!
This man changed the way I view the world. Thank you professor Rees.
I love being taught real things.
So depressing to hear our cities require 100 to 1000+ times their size in hinterland exploitation to live at their current standards. Even super-high-density Tokyo requires more than 2 times the entire land area of its nation (Japan). Of course, this excessive exploitation (living grossly out of balance with natural resources) is how our single species has destroyed 60% of all wildlife in the past 50 years. As he notes, our "overshoot is a fatal condition". And exponential growth (of the human population) will (probably?) be followed by exponential decline.
Not probably, definitely. Once the oil starts to become too energy intensive to extract, we will collapse.
What amazes me is the 2 comments to this talk 😮
Not me
Most people simply cannot conceive of the death of everyone who is alive today, even though, by one measure or another it is inevitable.
Thank you
Simon Micheax of Finland Geological Survey reckons Peak Fossil Fuels happens in 2027. If so, the Collapse comes soon after, and it hits different people in different ways. To divide humanity into three camps: 1) the poorest countries begin to starve because ammonia fertilizer is reduced and those countries are unable to compete to buy it. 2) Middle class people in more wealthy countries eat, but fuel prices and food prices go up at enormous rates. Everyone has to cut back their lifestyles. Eventually, that may not be enough. 3) The Global 1% are hardly affected at all. They continue attending COPs in private jets and spending Christmas in Aspen or the Alps. In describing the world of 2040 or so. It goes downhill after that.
I do not think so, the rich will be overthrown by the poor
Have a nice day.
Psycho.
The problem is that the US Geological Survey estimates of global commodities are only enough metals and minerals are 2-5% of projected needs for this century.
Overpopulation is the ‘mother of all problems’, as was predicted in the ‘70s but grossly ignored ever since. One might ask: if overpopulation is enabled or caused by fossil fuels, where leaves us that? On the other hand, it is becoming a moot question very quickly, as nature will turn against us. As far as we know, we are the only species who care.
great talk.
I am sure the billionaires will get through this just fine. As long as they'll be prepared and keep away from the mob of course.
They got the bunkers ready 😅
This world population is unsustainable
Im curious if the economy is decarbonizd who will pay back for my destroyed 4o1k? What about all of the lost jobs? Cause and effect not addressed
A great talk, thank you! I was wondering about the use of the primary energy sources that Professor Rees cites.
i) For the “global primary energy consumption by source” picture at 22:02, although fossil fuels are shown taking up 82% of primary energy, only a third of this (27%) can be “usefully” consumed (see below). Whereas, all of the primary energy from renewables (4-5%) can potentially be usefully used. At present (2023), although not brilliant, there is still a ratio of ~6:1 (27:4.5) of fossil fuel useful energy compared to renewable energy, as opposed to of 19:1 that might be assumed by just comparing the ratios of fossil fuel to renewable primary energy respectively.
ii) For the “BP New Momentum Scenario” picture at 26:24 things are looking a bit better, by 2050 although fossil fuels still account for ~60% of primary energy, this again can be divided by 3 to get the useful energy from burning stuff, i.e. 20%. Yet by 2050 we see that Renewables + Hydro + Nuclear will be accounting ~40% of total primary energy usage, fully twice what we will usefully get from fossil fuels. So by 2050 we have a ratio of 2:1 (40:20) in favour of non-fossil energy sources, i.e. ⅔ of our useful energy requirements come from “renewables” (incl. nukes + hydro), while only the remaining third comes from fossil fuel sources.
This would suggest that if we could knock out ⅓ of our actual energy consumption (not primary energy supply) by 2050 - specifically the fossil fuel part! - perhaps by adopting a European level of energy use as opposed to the US level of consumption, then we may have a shot at addressing our emissions from the energy sector…
NB:
* Assuming roughly ⅓ (approx) of fossil fuel primary energy can be usefully used, the remaining ⅔ is lost immediately as waste heat due to the thermodynamic inefficiency of “burning stuff”.
* Renewable energy is potentially all primary energy and can be used immediately for useful work, neglecting transmission losses etc.
* Subsequently all downstream energy (whether from originating from renewables or fossil fuels) is dissipated as waste heat and eventually radiated out into space.
Thank you! You have convinced me that Russia is the land of the future: biggest reserves of resources of all kinds, fossile fuels as well as renewable energy for centuries to come and millions of square kilometres of potentially fertile land waiting for climate to get finally warmer.
Educated white race humans are flocking to Russia....just sayin`
Green Hydrogen is meant to be an energy storage mechanism, not an actual energy source. It’s for when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow.
As of today January 2024.... this video has been up for 10 months on RUclips...
...with a piddly 6300 views and only 178 pathetic likes... I give a huge middle finger to Western Civilization for not paying attention...
Try talking about this with someone and watch how you get isolated, ridiculed and cast out. It is scary how programmed our societies are.
"Try talking about this with someone and watch how you get isolated, ridiculed and cast out." Yep, no one wants to talk about it.
In theory you create hydrogen with electricity so you can actually produce electricity now but use the energy much later or in a different geographical location.
too expensive for capitalistic system, still breakdown because of financial breakdown because those energy costs 40x more excluding fees
Is illegal immigrants being enticed by generous welfare programs exasperating NYC population over-shoot problems?
At 34 minutes Sustainable population ..world carrying capacity ..1 to 2 billion as world carrying as population capacity OR REDUCE present people number by 1 or 2 Billion ?
2 billion total
50-60 cm sealevel rise is more like 170 years. It’s already baked in, but it’s slow. Most of that diane happen until after 2100. That’s why it’s so hard to convince people it’s really happening.
19:31
Gosh people's, the Holy Bible is true & its happening in our life time , u know y , because, people's have sealed their fate by their iffy walking, y all this ! 💝💒👣👑