Coming Age of Scarcity - Will It Lead to War?

[Grifman]

This guy appears to be channeling Quinn/RM9:

Warning: Grantham’s equation has deadly saboteurs: All global economies are driven by the principle of economic growth: Population grows, prosperity grows, wealth grows, everybody happy. Bad economics: “If we maintain our desperate focus on growth, we will run out of everything and crash. We must substitute qualitative growth for quantitative growth.” Quality growth? Yes, but it will not slow quantity growth. Why? As developing economies add more people, they all want their version of the “American dream.” Just look at China in the past decade. The drive for “more” is unstoppable

Warning: The “problems of compounding growth in the face of finite resources are not easily understood by optimistic, short-term-oriented, and relatively innumerate humans.” Grantham’s talking about political, financial and business leaders whose brains cannot see the long term. They make decisions based on quarterly earnings, annual bonuses, the next election, or the next billion they can stash in a Swiss bank. It’s never enough.

Warning: The market “is sending us the Mother of all price signals. The prices of all important commodities except oil declined for 100 years until 2002, by an average of 70%. From 2002 until now, this entire decline was erased by a bigger price surge than occurred during World War II.”

The Pentagon’s already warned us of the end game, WWIII. Grantham explains that commodity prices are tied to climate and “climate change is associated with weather instability,” which may improve in the short term, but long term will keep driving commodity inflation with huge risks: “Excellent long-term investment opportunities in resources and resource efficiency are compromised by the high chance of an improvement in weather next year … and by the possibility that China may stumble.” And so will the whole world.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/super- ... genumber=2" target="_blank

I think it's interesting that a business guy is advocating this view.

Sounds like the scenario that leads to the events of the game Fallout. Who knew computer games were really life simulations. If this guy is correct, we're all screwed until such point our numbers reduce to an economically sustainable level, by whatever means that occurs.

[RunningMn9]

I'll add to the fun:

The world is facing starvation as climate change disrupts food production and the population booms and science’s last hope may be locked inside Syria's forgotten wild plants.

[Pyperkub]

How can he say that commodities fell for 100 years and then compare the price surge since 2002 to a price surge in WW2? Fool.

Let's turn this around and play a little devil's advocate; as oil and other fossil energy prices rise, solar power gets easier and cheaper, and without the infrastructure needed to run power lines everywhere, cheap power becomes ubiquitous. This coupled with advances in battery technology, and bio-organic computing leads to an explosion of new products/technologies and industries that aren't dependent on non-renewable commodities.

[Grifman]

How can he say that commodities fell for 100 years and then compare the price surge since 2002 to a price surge in WW2? Fool.

Because the overall decline in the last 100 years wasn't a straight line. There were ups and downs but the overall trend was down. Obviously, WW2 was an up in an overall declining trend for a 100 years. You might want to be more careful about calling people fools

Let's turn this around and play a little devil's advocate; as oil and other fossil energy prices rise, solar power gets easier and cheaper,

Increases in oil/fossil fuel prices don't decrease solar power costs. It just makes solar power more economical compared with oil but it still costs more. It's yet to be seen that solar power will be as cheap as oil/fossil fuels.

and without the infrastructure needed to run power lines everywhere, cheap power becomes ubiquitous. This coupled with advances in battery technology, and bio-organic computing leads to an explosion of new products/technologies and industries that aren't dependent on non-renewable commodities.

A lot of assumptions there. Do you bet the future on it? What if it doesn't happen? Do we just hope it comes true?

[RunningMn9]

Grifman, welcome to my world. Good luck.

[Pyperkub]

How can he say that commodities fell for 100 years and then compare the price surge since 2002 to a price surge in WW2? Fool.

Because the overall decline in the last 100 years wasn't a straight line. There were ups and downs but the overall trend was down. Obviously, WW2 was an up in an overall declining trend for a 100 years. You might want to be more careful about calling people fools

I'd argue that using 2002 as a starting point is almost equivalent to WW2, or do you not recall the comparisons of 9/11 to Pearl Harbor? We are, after all, involved in wars on 3 fronts right now... of course, these wars are in part about access to non-renewable commodities.

As to Solar Power - no, higher gas prices don't directly lead to lower solar prices., but they do lead to increased investment, which leads to increased efficiency and economies of scale, which will lead to lower prices.

However, I'm just more of the opinion that things are never as bad as doomsayers claim. Yeah my post was kind of sunshiny, but that was the point. Climate change could also open large swaths of areas that are currently un-farmable to agrarian industry. The ecosystem will achieve an equilibrium - could that equilibrium be disaterous for us - sure, but I'm of the belief it won't be, because we will do something about it.

Am I going to be on it? I'd bet on a lot of positives, in addition to the negatives, whether they are the ones prognosticated here or not.

[RunningMn9]

I'd argue that using 2002 as a starting point is almost equivalent to WW2, or do you not recall the comparisons of 9/11 to Pearl Harbor? We are, after all, involved in wars on 3 fronts right now... of course, these wars are in part about access to non-renewable commodities.

Since this is Grifman's first time, I will lend a helping hand.

Did you seriously mean to draw a comparison to the spike in resource consumption as a result of World War II and our little excursions over the past decade?

A quick, and conservative count of the number of military personnel that was mobilized for WW2 is approximately 50 *million*. Not a few hundred thousand. 50 *million*.

And the combined Army, Navy and Air Force (along with equipment) of Germany, Russia, France, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, the empire of Japan and the United States.

There is *nothing* similar in scale between the spike as a result of WW2 and the resource spike that may have resulted because of very minor conflicts (in context) in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya.

I can't believe I even had to say that.

Now - with that said, one could argue that this spike in prices is just a spike and not a reversal of a long-term trend towards ever decreasing commodity prices. You could certainly try to make that argument, and I invite you to do it. You could take the angle that Grifman hasn't sufficiently shown that the post-2002 spike is the result of scarcity as well. Bt Grifman's failure to prove a position (if he indeed hasn't) isn't a very good reason to take up a position.

[quote="Pyperkub"}As to Solar Power - no, higher gas prices don't directly lead to lower solar prices., but they do lead to increased investment, which leads to increased efficiency and economies of scale, which will lead to lower prices.[/quote]
That is, of course, true.

However, I'm just more of the opinion that things are never as bad as doomsayers claim.

If you are playing the odds, that's not a bad bet. Every prior civilization has had it's share of doomsayers, and most of them were wrong too - until they weren't. And if you think about it, one of the chief reasons that it got to the point where the last generation of doomsayers was right, is that the doomsayers before them were wholly ignored until it was too late.

By the time enough people agree with Grifman, it will be too late. That's why I more or less stopped caring (despite my willingness to talk about it occasionally). There's nothing you can do. There are too many people willing to look the other way so they don't have to face being the generation that has to make the hard choices.

Climate change could also open large swaths of areas that are currently un-farmable to agrarian industry.

That's possible. It might be that vast swaths of methane-filled permafrost will melt and immediately be suitable for producing enough agriculture to feed upwards of 10 billion people. Anything is possible. I've never heard from a person with actual knowledge of agriculture that believes this though.

The ecosystem will achieve an equilibrium - could that equilibrium be disaterous for us - sure, but I'm of the belief it won't be, because we will do something about it.

Ah, the arrogance of it all.

The ecosystem will absolutely achieve an equilibrium. The problem (as anyone well versed in understanding ecosystems will tell you) is that we are already doing something about it.

We are busy kicking out the support beams because we've collectively taken the bet that the doomsayers are usually wrong (right up until they aren't).

I've primed the pump for you Grif, godspeed.

[Pyperkub]

RM 9 - did you ever read Brin's Earth?

PS I am going to stick by my comparison regarding the spike - it's nitpicking, but whey you say it trends down perpetually, and then start listing exclusions, then I will make the comparison. If the commodity price trends are adjusted for the costs of transportation that the uncertainty in the middle east due to terrorism and multiple wars are explicitly accounted for, then maybe I'll back off, but in the meantime, I'll state that the author of the article is being manipulative and therefore deserves to be called out for it.

[RunningMn9]

PS I am going to stick by my comparison regarding the spike - it's nitpicking, but whey you say it trends down perpetually, and then start listing exclusions, then I will make the comparison.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here.

Here is the presumed quote under dispute:

Warning: The market “is sending us the Mother of all price signals. The prices of all important commodities except oil declined for 100 years until 2002, by an average of 70%. From 2002 until now, this entire decline was erased by a bigger price surge than occurred during World War II.”

From 1902 until 2002, all important commodities (except oil) declined by an average of 70%. So if the average commodity price was $100 in 1902, the average commodity price had fallen to $30 in 2002. All good here?

Ok, from 2002, until he wrote that article, all important commodities (except oil) have increased beyond $100 ("this entire decline was erased").

This surge is bigger than the surge that occurred during World War II (which obviously reversed itself after the war and resumed the downward trend). You aren't comfortable because he hasn't factored in transportation worries due to uncertainty in the middle east?

During WW2, the entire planet was at war. And not the nonsense that we call "war" today. Multiple countries committed more than 20,000,000 soldiers *each* to WW2.

The current spike is greater than the spike due to WW2 and you think that it might be because of uncertainties in the Middle East and our little adventures?

/brain shuts down

RE: the book, no.

[silverjon]

/brain shuts down

RE: the book, no.

Imagine a book about a painter that is charged with painting a room in one hour, and early in the book the painter realizes that he started painting at the door. The author skillfully lets the reader into the drama. How is the painter ever going to finish? What will happen to the painter if he doesn't? To the very end, where the reader is sitting on the edge of his chair whereupon the author claims that it was no issue after all, since the paint is magical and dries instantly and the painter is equipped with magical shoes that allow him to levitate.

That is what this book is like.

[Pyperkub]

RM 9 - people have been hypothesizing a Malthusian reduction for decades - Ehrlich being one of the most frequently cited. I read Grantham's prediction and I'm not sold. I look at the initial linked document and it makes the same claim today that Ehrlich made 40 years ago; that food production can't keep up with population (see point 5). It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

Climate change does throw a new wrinkle, but I'm not sold on the catastrophic effects on food production yet. As to 2002, the reasoning behind the jump is that the entrance of China into the WTO around that time. As such, I think there may be some weird accounting with regards to the commodities that China was consuming prior to 2002 that may not be accounted for. Other articles that I read indicated that they expected commodities prices to level off in the coming decade, whilst another was looking at what it called "real" commodities prices since the 1700's (it sounded like "real" meant gdp-adjusted, or some odd measurement), and mentioned that despite the aforementioned decline, that prices had remained constant - which seemed rather odd to me.

As to Silverjon and Earth - cherrypicking a 2 star review from a book with an aggregate 4 star review? And not really looking at the quotes that may be relevant to this discussion? Hmmm.

[silverjon]

That's the funniest description of deus ex machina I have ever (ever!) had the pleasure of reading, and that includes Bill Willingham's personification of it as the Literal character of Dex, who can only help out once per storyline, typically at the climax.

Writers have really high expectations when it comes to storytelling.

[Pyperkub]

ON the flip side, RM 9 should be interested in this - Climate change cuts a France's worth of wheat out of global agriculture:

In fact, plenty of evidence, from altered growing seasons and changed animal migrations, indicate that climate change is already having an effect on the biosphere.

Evidence is now beginning to build that things are hitting us where it hurts. Last year, data was published that indicated commercially important shellfish were already being hurt by ocean acidification. Now, a paper that will be released by Science later today indicates that rising temperatures are cutting into agricultural productivity...

...For context, the authors note that this is one Mexico's worth of maize, and the equivalent to France's annual wheat crop. "Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, CO2 fertilization, and other factors," the authors conclude.

But carbon dioxide impacts plant growth through mechanisms other than climate. The authors reran their calculations using data that estimates the boost in productivity that's gained from the additional CO2, which plants require for photosynthesis. As long as water and fertilizers aren't constrained, rice and soybeans would have actually seen productivity gains during the study period, and some of the loss of wheat productivity would be offset. Maize is not affected by increased carbon dioxide.

Overall, if you exclude the carbon fertilization, temperature changes have translated into an average price increase of 19 percent on the global agricultural market. The offset of carbon fertilization drops that figure to 6.4 percent.

[noxiousdog]

RM 9 - people have been hypothesizing a Malthusian reduction for decades - Ehrlich being one of the most frequently cited. I read Grantham's prediction and I'm not sold. I look at the initial linked document and it makes the same claim today that Ehrlich made 40 years ago; that food production can't keep up with population (see point 5). It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

You say that like there haven't been Malthusian reductions before.

In the last 150 years, we've always found more energy to throw at the problems. That's simply not possible now. The question is whether demand can be reduced smoothly enough to hold off for another energy revolution.

[Pyperkub]

RM 9 - people have been hypothesizing a Malthusian reduction for decades - Ehrlich being one of the most frequently cited. I read Grantham's prediction and I'm not sold. I look at the initial linked document and it makes the same claim today that Ehrlich made 40 years ago; that food production can't keep up with population (see point 5). It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

You say that like there haven't been Malthusian reductions before.

In the last 150 years, we've always found more energy to throw at the problems. That's simply not possible now. The question is whether demand can be reduced smoothly enough to hold off for another energy revolution.

Looking at the new article I linked, it makes the point that Wheat and Maize production/yields are down, but Rice and Soybean are up - that the loss to some climate change has been made up for by new agriculture at higher elevations, and that ha higher realization of technological advances in agriculture for those crops is possible with higher water and fertilizer utilization.

[silverjon]

Fresh water and fertilizer are infinite, are they?

[Pyperkub]

Fresh water and fertilizer are infinite, are they?

Renewable. With desalinization plants fresh water would be for all practical intents infinite, or at least not the/a bottleneck.

[noxiousdog]

Fresh water and fertilizer are infinite, are they?

Renewable. With desalinization plants fresh water would be for all practical intents infinite, or at least not the/a bottleneck.

How do you plan on powering your desalinization plants and transporting the water to fertile areas?

[Isgrimnur]

Solar, baby!

Most of the desal plants that exist currently seem to be in desert areas. At least that's what Rainbow Six has taught me.

[The Meal]

Fresh water and fertilizer are infinite, are they?

Renewable. With desalinization plants fresh water would be for all practical intents infinite, or at least not the/a bottleneck.

It's not like what comes out the other end of the desalinization process is unicorn poop. Those things are NASTY. And in the context of infinite fresh water, unsustainable.

Energy is a huge (legitimate) burden. But even with cold fusion or other technological magic, the process of desalinization has two outputs, only one of which is preferable.

[RunningMn9]

Renewable. With desalinization plants fresh water would be for all practical intents infinite, or at least not the/a bottleneck.

That is the first time that I've ever seen desalinization plants listed as a renewable resource.

They are hella-energy intensive, which makes them hella-non-renewable.

With all due respect, I've found over the years that the people with the most faith in agricultural magic are the people that know the least about the agricultural system. We've been through this before, but there is a reason why we moved from an agricultural system that used 100% renewable energy inputs to one that used 95% non-renewable energy inputs (it is astounding how little energy in modern agriculture actually comes from the sun).

All modernized countries are losing topsoil at an alarming rate. All modernized countries are depleting fresh water resources at an alarming rate.

The article that I linked to above is about the people that are responsible for wielding the agricultural magic that you have so much faith in. And they don't have any faith at all. They think we are probably in for a very unpleasant time in the not to distant future.

If climate change opens up northern Saskatchewan for corn farming, it is very unlikely that it will be enough to offset the loss of the American Mid-West, which is returning to the desert from whence it came.

Although none of this has to do with the recent seemingly huge jump in commodity prices.

[LawBeefaroni]

Fresh water and fertilizer are infinite, are they?

The fertilizer used to meet modern requirements is not. Potash, which is the major component, is a commodity traded almost like oil. Prices have come down but they're still at least triple what they were in 2008.


If only we can figure out tierra negra...

[silverjon]

And then there's the way chemical fertilizers don't ever actually enrich the soil they're added to, and the phosphate-rich run-off effectively poisons whatever water bodies it drains into.

[El Guapo]

Don't worry, Phillip Morris is doing its part:

RICHMOND, VA—Executives at Philip Morris USA this week unveiled Marlboro Earth, a new eco-friendly cigarette that gradually eliminates the causes of global warming and environmental destruction at their source.

"By killing off the No. 1 threat to the environment, new Marlboro Earths will have a long-term effect on the overall health of our planet," Philip Morris spokesperson Janet Weiss said. "If everyone in America does their part and joins our new green-smoking movement, then together we can eradicate man's destructive practices once and for all."

According to a press release from Philip Morris, the new environmentally friendly cigarettes work by employing powerful carcinogens that accumulate in the lungs of smokers, slowly breaking down their vital organs and eliminating the danger posed to the overpopulated planet by the human race.

Because Marlboro Earths take decades to work, the company stresses that people should start using them as early as possible, ideally during childhood or adolescence, in order to maximize the product's effectiveness.

"We've got to get everybody on board, the sooner the better," said Weiss, stressing that nothing less than the fate of the planet was at stake. "It doesn't take much. As few as two packs of Marlboro Earths a day can make all the difference in the world."

"Go ahead," Weiss continued. "Light up, breathe in, and help save Mother Earth."

[Isgrimnur]

I got to paragraph three of your quote before I checked the link to make sure it was an Onion article.