peak planet: are we starting to consume less? - electrical appliance suppliers

Fred Pearce . . . . . . Human beings are doomed to fail.
Or in 1798, Robert Malthus, a British scholar, published an influential article about the principles of population.
Malthus predicts that an unlimited increase in the number of humans will put our species in a "relentless struggle for food and space", as well as an unbreakable cycle of dirt, famine and disease.
Two centuries later, biologist Paul Elsie was equally pessimistic.
In his 1968 best-selling book population bomb, he declared that we have surpassed the "carrying capacity" of the Earth ".
"The battle to feed humanity is over.
Sometime between 1970 and 1985, the world will experience a great famine.
Hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.
Our mood has barely improved in 2012.
The focus has shifted from how to feed ourselves to our greedy appetite for energy and raw materials, and the greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere to satisfy it.
Sooner or later, if we haven't done so, we have to let the climate of our planet and ourselves go beyond the point of no return.
Will these reports of our imminent death also be exaggerated?
That is the reason for those who have seen this pattern from recent statistics in industrialized countries.
Americans drive less.
Europeans use less and less energy.
Water consumption in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom is declining;
The same is true of calorie consumption in the UK.
The theme of the speech is "peak content" & colon;
After a certain degree of economic development, people will no longer consume.
The process of technological and economic development has enabled prosperity to continue to grow, while our use of energy and materials has not increased accordingly.
Our demand for Planetary Resources has stabilized and has finally begun to decline.
Others do not believe that they saw a dangerous myth at their peak, and an almost undisguised excuse to abandon efforts to limit the influence of our planets. Without large-
They believe that the massive intervention now to curb our excesses, if there is a peak, will be too little, too late.
Who is right?
Will humans really lose interest in things? If so, would it help?
Predictions like Malthus and Elish fall on a simple point & colon;
They did not see what would happen next.
Malthus missed out on the way the industrial revolution and mass production ended up making more people live longer and more comfortable.
Elixi failed to take into account the "green revolution" factor, which refers to the wider use of more efficient crop varieties and fertilizers and pesticides that have been producing food since the 1960 generation
Maybe we missed a similar trend now.
The past prophecy of the end of mankind failed at a simple point.
Although Elich came to the wrong conclusion, they did not see what was going to happen next, and his analysis provided a useful framework for assessing the debate about the peak.
Elish described our planetary footprint as a product of three factors and the colon;
How many of us, how much each of us consumes, how we produce what we consume-that is, popular technology.
Our great influence on the Earth depends largely on the first factor-population.
To a large extent, thanks to advances in medicine, it ensured that for the first time in human history, most children were able to grow, and in the past century, our number quadrupled to 7 billion.
We are adjusting our behavior & colon at the same time;
There are 2 women today.
On average, there are five children, half of them 40 years ago.
In most of Europe and East Asia, including China, this figure is 1.
6 or less, below the rate required to maintain the size of the population.
This makes Joel Cohen, a demographer at Columbia University in New York, predict that "many of us may see peak populations by the middle of this century ".
If so, it will meet the first necessary conditions to begin to reduce our demand for the Earth.
Not everyone is so optimistic.
First of all, over time, even small changes in fertility have a big impact on our numbers.
The fertility rate in sub-Saharan Africa is still mostly over 4 years old.
"Fertility in Africa is declining, but it is slower than many of us expect," said Hania Zlotnik.
The United Nations forecasts for the 2100 world population range from 15 to 15.
8 billion and rose to 6.
2 billion and decline.
The projection in the middle is about 10 billion stable (
See Planet peak and colon cancer. Population“).
Even if population growth is at the low end of expectations, reaching a peak still requires each of us to reduce consumption-which puts us in the second indicator of elixi.
In the past, the decline in consumption looked like wishful thinking.
The world population has tripled since 1950.
But our use of materials such as metals and oil has quadrupled and greenhouse gas emissions have more than tripled.
However, supporters of peak stuff pointed out that this masks an important positive trend.
Since 1950, the world economy has grown seven times, easily surpassing our resource consumption.
According to the United States Energy Information Agency, during the period from 1973 to 2008, the United States on average received economic benefits from each unit of energy consumption per year.
Analysis by Jesse osumbel and Paul Wagner of Rockefeller University in New York shows that this trend of more economic per resource dollar is common in developing economies, went through the initial stage of "cheap and dirty" growth.
In 2008, they used data covering 1980 to 2006, believing that "the intensity of impact has been declining from energy use and carbon emissions to food consumption and fertilizer use, from the United States and France to the world and countries such as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia "(
Journal of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 105, p. 12774).
They refer to this trend as "dematerializing" the economy ".
This still does not bring us close to the peak and colon;
In order to promote economic growth, we must also increase our total consumption.
This trend may now have been reversed through some measures and some places.
For example, Chris Goodall, an environmental analyst and writer in the UK, believes that the British are not spending more than they were in their 1990 s.
He said that according to the National Bureau of Statistics, the UK's "total demand for materials" reached 2.
The decrease in 2001 was 17 billion tons to 2 tons.
Production was 9 billion tons by 2007, although GDP grew at that time.
"Water consumption is down, travel and car ownership is down, metal and paper usage is down, cement usage is down, calorie consumption and meat consumption are down," said Goodall . ".
The use of water has decreased, the use of metal and paper has decreased, and the consumption of calories and meat has also decreased. In addition, between 2000 and 2009, household energy demand in 27 countries of the EU has fallen by nearly a tenth;
In Sweden, France and the Netherlands, the figure fell by 15 percentage points.
Water consumption in other countries has also declined.
S. Geological Survey found that US consumption in 2005 was 5 percentage points lower than the peak in 1980, although this trend has risen slightly again in recent years (
See Planet peak and colon cancer. Water“).
According to a government analysis, in 2010, calorie consumption in Britain was lower than the peak of 2001.
Long-term downward trend ". Adam Millard-
Ball at McGill University in Montreal, Canada and late Lee Schipper at Stanford University in California reported last year that car usage in countries including Germany, the UK, Australia has been declining, France and Japan
According to data from Robert Puentes and Adi toMel of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, in the United States, between 2004 and 2008, the per capita car mileage has decreased.
Young people lead the way & Cologne;
The proportion of our 17-year-
The elderly who hold a driving license have gone from about three
Half the quarter since 1998.
Is this obvious De-materialisation trend important, or can other factors besides actual consumption decrease explain these trends?
For example, in the past few decades, a large number of manufacturing outsourcing, from developed economies to low-income economies, has a huge demand for materials, energy and water. wage ones.
However, indicators such as total material demand have tried to consider this shift, and water consumption in the UK has fallen considerably in private homes and industries.
The recession in the past few years has also suppressed consumption, but it has established a downward trajectory before the recession begins. And as Millard-
Ball and Schipper point out that although fuel prices have been slowly rising since 2002, trends such as "peak cars" are earlier than dramatic oil prices --
We have experienced price fluctuations since 2007.
Instead, osumbel suggests the impact of a longer period of time
People began to see changes in culture and economy.
He said that in addition to a certain level of wealth, our expenditures on resources have been reduced proportionally --
Intensive staple foods such as food, housing and clothing, as well as more services.
For example, for meals in trendy restaurants, most of the cost is spent on paying for the skill and atmosphere of the chef, not a lot of ingredients.
While this meal creates more economic value, it does not require more material or energy than food cooked at home.
Also, we can buy something better with extra cash.
Quality goods that last longer, or a conscious "ecological" choice, are often guided by simple things such as government regulations or labels.
Bruno lapyona of Enerdata, the agency for the preparation of EU energy --
The use of data shows that this downward trend can be explained to a large extent by the efficiency improvement of large electrical appliances and heating systems.
As far as peak car is concerned, Richard Florida, a city research theorist at the University of Toronto, Canada, believes that smartphone, social media and internet shopping are replacing travel, so, having your own wheels has lost social prestige for young people (
See Planet peak and colon cancer. Car usage“).
Smartphones, social media and online shopping mean that the wheel of ownership has lost control. Such a conclusion is controversial.
Tim Jackson of the University of Guildford Surrey in the UK suspects that this trend will have a significant impact on our overall consumption, as resource efficiency in one region tends to be canceled due to splurge elsewhere.
In 2009, he and his colleague Nick Hogg showed how the way we received recorded music was digitized and didn't lead to dematerialisation, mainly because we bought more hardware
The hardware may also get smaller and smaller, but overall it takes more effort to run.
In another area, while osumbel is a non-materialistic supporter, he points out that we drive less and fly more.
This has led Julian Alwood, a resource expert at the University of Cambridge, to say that "the vision of dematerialisation is tempting, but elusive ".
In terms of overall consumption indicators, such as the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by an economy, it is really difficult to see a consistent trend.
From 1990 to 2008, although the economic growth trend is roughly similar, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have increased, while the European Union has decreased (
See Planet peak and colon cancer.
"Carbon dioxide emissions".
The rush of things may be part of the story, but obviously not all.
There is, however, a more basic objection & colon;
Even if it peaks quickly, it only applies to one billion people living in rich countries among the world's 7 billion people.
Critics argue that to peak globally, it is necessary to curb growing demand in the developing world while seeing continued declines in consumption in rich countries.
Andrew Sims of the new economy Foundation, a London-based think tank, notes that the environment doesn't care too much about who is doing what.
"Our impact only makes sense if our impact is related to the ability of the earth to keep up," he said . ".
Taking steel as an example, steel is a material that is ubiquitous in modern infrastructure such as homes, offices, cars and factories.
According to the International Energy Agency, steelmaking accounts for almost all carbon dioxide emissions.
Steel consumption in Europe and North America has stabilized or even declined slightly over the past 40 years. But global demand has risen between 2000 and 2010, as the rest of the world plays a catch-up role. up.
China's demand for steel has almost quadrupled to 400 kilograms per year, comparable to Europe and North America before the current recession (
See Planet peak and colon cancer.
Total steel consumption.
With the growth of the global economy, there may be more growth in the future.
Per capita steel consumption is still about half that level (
See Planet peak and colon cancer.
Per capita steel consumption.
Critics of Peak stuff see this as a good reason to close the discussion.
"In advanced economies, the evidence of substantial absolute dematerialisation is at best insignificant," Jackson said . ".
"On a global scale,existent.
According to this interpretation, global consumption will continue to grow rapidly, consume resources and emit dangerous greenhouse gases.
Many attempts have been made over the years to estimate the Earth's "carrying capacity"-that is, how many people the Earth can accommodate and how many people are consumed at what level.
The conclusion on sustainable population levels is quite different from Elich's estimate of 1968 for 1.
From 5 billion to tens of billions.
The Royal Society has tried this year.
In a report entitled man and earth, it concludes that there is no correct answer & Cologne;
It all depends on technology.
Right here, in the third indicator of elixi, there may be a glimmer of hope for what is peak.
Technology has been deciding how many of us can survive on this planet.
When humans turn from hunters
As the breeding and planting of crops greatly increases the potential source of food, the world is able to feed more people.
The industrial society has once again increased its carrying capacity by mining fossil fuels, especially by producing artificial fertilizers.
The excessive consumption and resource depletion that we are facing today can be said to stem from this innovation.
But further technological revolutions may help us make more effective use of resources without destroying important ecosystems and enable billions to live safely and healthily.
We may see some positive signs.
Countries developing economies now have access to a range of technologies that enable them to cross the inefficient processes used by developed countries.
The scale of coal in China has been greatly expanded.
Over the past decade, it has become the world's largest solar and wind generator.
According to the World Bank, the carbon intensity of China's economy-carbon dioxide emissions relative to the size of economic output-has dropped by nearly 70 in the past 30 years (
See Planet peak and colon cancer.
Carbon dioxide intensity ")
And promised to reduce the current level by 20 by 2020.
If successful, China will achieve this goal faster than any country at a similar stage of development.
With prices of fossil fuels and other commodities rising, the carbon intensity of China's economy has fallen faster than any economy in history, largely depending on the economy itselfinterest.
"The problem is not the absolute lack of supply, but the increasing cost of energy and money being mined," Allwood said . ".
This makes investment in energy and material efficiency more attractive.
At the same time, the price is low
Carbon energy sources such as solar panels are falling rapidly.
McKinsey, a consultancy, predicts that solar energy will be as cheap as coal and nuclear power by 2020.
According to a detailed analysis by colleagues at the China Energy Group at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Southern Zhou and California, this trend, coupled with the amazing pace of China's development, means that things at peak may be much faster than expected.
In the scenario they liked, they concluded, "ownership of electrical appliances, area of residential and commercial buildings, use of roads, railways, fertilizers, slowing down as the population grows, urbanization will peak at around 2030 "-so will China's carbon dioxide emissions.
If China's use of renewable energy and nuclear energy grows at a reasonable rate and China captures some emissions from coal
By 2050, Mr. Zhou said, burning power plants and continuing to improve energy efficiency could be four percentage points lower than today's total emissions.
Ajay Gambhir from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London and his colleagues are more optimistic.
Their conclusion is that continue to take low
Carbon Technology, China can reasonably reduce emissions by twice.
By 2050, from 9 giltonis to 3 giltonis.
For the world's most populous country, which has recently become the largest carbon dioxide emitter, it will be a remarkable achievement.
What China can do, what other major developing countries such as India, Indonesia and Nigeria can do.
Zhou stressed that none of this is certain-we should not sit back and expect China to do our dirty work in cleaning up sanitation.
Control global warming at 2 °c above average temperature
Industrial temperatures are generally accepted "safe" levels that may require carbon emissions to peak in ten years and then cut by more than half globally
According to the United Nations Environment Programme, this is a century.
Even if China limits its emissions to 5 gigs, an ambitious figure, developed countries need to cut emissions by about 80 to achieve that.
The way we use things provides some way.
Allwood notes that more than half of our industrial CO2 emissions come from the production and processing of five Materials & the colon;
Steel, cement, plastic, paper and aluminum.
According to the International Energy Agency, by adopting proven technologies to save and recover waste heat and reduce waste of materials, energy consumption in the global steel industry can be reduced by 34 percentage points.
The paper industry can reach 38%, and the cement can reach 40% (
See Planet peak and colon cancer. Waste“).
This is still not enough in itself.
"Even with the strongest assumptions, we can't achieve carbon emissions targets through energy and process efficiency in existing systems," Allwood said . ".
Jackson made it clearer.
"The idea of a transition to a sustainable economy is clearly wrong, because the free-to-control market will come spontaneously," he said . ".
Another option is to switch to more factories.
Basic materials, not energy
Minerals and hydrocarbons are dense.
In April, the US government launched the national bio-economic blueprint, which is expected to significantly increase the use of biofuels, and the construction of large refineries will produce plastics, fibers and chemicals made from genetically engineered plants.
But this is not necessarily a good way to reduce our impact on the Earth.
This will significantly increase the pressure on the other two critical limited resources-land and water-and mean more use of nitrogen --
Fertilizers that make the soil acidic, destroy the natural nitrogen cycle and form a dead zone in rivers and oceans.
Or we can let the market decide, but give them the right signal first.
In its people and Earth report, the Royal Society supports the idea of giving cash value to a limited "natural capital", as we do with limited material resources.
Through this we will be pricing forests, soil, water supply and other basic ecological services-a method that China has been pioneering (see news story).
Cameron Hepburn, an economist at the London School of Economics, said repairing the tax system would also help.
Moving from income and labor taxes to taxes on resource use can be a big incentive, prompting us to change habits faster and more profoundly in developed economies with little demand.
Can we catch net hemp?
Boboboserup, an agricultural economist in Denmark, believes that historically, the pressure on population growth and shortages is a necessary stimulus to technological development, which seems to be coming in time to avoid disasters such as Malthus and Elich.
There are signs that we already know.
How to live long and prosper on a limited planet without needing more.
The question is whether we will make a decision to achieve this commitment before it becomes "too late" in time.