Transcript Welcome to Ottawa’s First Showing of

PEAK OIL AND THE
FATE OF HUMANITY
Chapter 7 – How We Got Ourselves Into
this Situation
By Robert Bériault
How did a
seemingly
intelligent species
like yours get into
this mess?
The problem, in a nutshell is that:
Humans as a general
rule, aren’t familiar with
the concept of
I=TAP
I = TAP
It is a beautifully elegant formula:
I
Impact on
the
environment
=
T
Technology
(how many
processes,
tools and
goods we
use)
x
A
Affluence
(how
Much
money we
spend)
x
P
Population
(how
many
people)
The
I = TAP formula
(pronounced: “eye-tap”)
is the multiplier effect
I
on the environment ( mpact) of:
Technology
multiplied by the effect of
Affluence
multiplied by the effect of
Population
I = TAP
You can reduce the Impact if you either:
Resort to more manual labour (less Technology)
or
Spend less money (less Affluence)
or
Reduce the number of people (in other words, less Population)
or
Any combination of those three
Paul and Anne Ehrlich
tried to explain this
wonderfully simple
and logical formula in
1968.
People refused to listen.
The Erlichs referred to the phenomenon as I=PAT
You’ve lost me
Robert. I’m no
good at formulas.
Can you explain
this in simple
language?
I = TAP
What this formula says is that the factors
Technology, Affluence and Population
aren’t added to each other but they’re
multiplied by each other.
Impact = Technology X Affluence X Population
Here’s a concrete example of
technology…
I = TAP
The extraction of
resources for the
manufacture of TV sets,
their packaging,
transport, their
operation and eventual
disposal have an impact
on the environment,
right?
I see what you’re
driving at. The
more TV sets are
made, the more
the impact,
right?
Exactly! Now lets look at
the three elements on the
right hand side of the
equation.
I = TAP
First, we’ll start with the T,
Number of TV
sets in Canada
I = TAP
Think of this:
when TV sets didn’t
exist they had no
environmental impact!
3.6 million
24 million
25
TV sets
(millions)
Today the Impact on
the environment is
about 6.5 times what it
was in 1960
Technology factor
20
15
10
5
0
1960 2003
YEAR
Second, we multiply by the A,
Buying a TV set in
2003 took 11 times
less of a Canadian’s
income than in 1960.
When people have
more money, it
means more TV sets,
which means more
environmental
impact.
Cost Relative to Wages
A TV set cost
11% of a 1960 salary
Percentage
of salary
I = T AP
Affluence factor
12
10
A TV set cost 1%
of a 2003 salary
Affluence
means more
TV sets
8
6
4
2
0
1960 2003
YEAR
Third, we multiply by the P,
There was a 74%
increase in the Canadian
population between
1960 and 2003
A 74% increase in
population meant a 74%
increase in the number
of TVs…
…and a 74% increase in
environmental impact.
Increase in Population
Population
32 million
by
18 increased
million
1.7 times
Persons
(millions)
I = TA P
Population factor
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1960 2003
YEAR
I think that an understanding of
how we got into this situation can
be useful in seeking solutions, so
bear with me.
I = TAP
Soil erosion
Water contamination
Loss of biodiversity
Death of pollinators
Deforestation
Habitat destruction
Atmospheric pollution
I = TAP
Every invention, every
improvement to our
homes or work places
adds to the “T” part of
the equation.
I = TAP
Technology started with
the invention of fire and
stone axes and has
culminated with space
exploration.
All inventions increase
humankind’s effect on the
environment.
Waorani Indian of Ecuador
cuts tree with stone axe
I = TAP
Perhaps we haven’t recognised that we are animals like
others:
Humans are organisms
– subject to the laws of nature.
The artificial environments we
have built for ourselves and the
machines that we created have
distanced us from the natural
life-support systems that are
essential to our survival.
Our technology ignores the laws
of nature.
Those laws of nature will
inexorably catch up with us.
Diagram from: www.nrcs.usda.gov/.../ land/pubs/ib5text.html
I = TAP
Like other large carnivores,
human beings are at the top
of a complex food chain.
All the organisms in an
ecosystem interact to form a
web of life that is selfsustaining.
http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/fs/16
6-96/fig1.html
I = TAP
The destruction of one of the links of the chain can
have serious effects on the entire chain and on other
parts of the web.
Humans have been
breaking chain links
without understanding
the impact this might
have on the whole
web of life.
I = TAP
Changes occur too slowly for us to recognise
them
Humans are like the frog in a pan of cold
water.
The pan is placed on the stove burner. As
the water warms up the cold blooded
animal doesn’t feel the incremental heat.
The hapless thing will stay in the pan until
it boils to death.
I = TAP
Growth of a city, with its crowding
and pollution, is imperceptible from one
day to the next.
We don’t notice that the easy
resources to extract are gone and only
the harder-to-reach ones are left.
Some important changes, such as
mercury pollution cannot be detected
by the senses and we must trust the
scientists’ instruments and knowledge.
Growing
Growing cities
cities,
minerals,
pollution
Poor yield
copper ore
Mercury pollution
I = TAP
However, like the frog, we
fail to notice incremental
Like the
frog…
changes.
Therefore the “T” part of
the equation keeps on
increasing.
I = TAP
It’s a complicated world and it’s difficult to
obtain definitive information
We can’t prove beyond the shadow of a doubt
that global warming is caused by human
activities. So those who have a vested interest
in the status quo have campaigned very
effectively against any greenhouse gas
reduction.
With regards to the oil peak, information has
only recently started to reach the mainstream.
I = TAP
Perhaps we have not assessed the risks
adequately:
If there is a 10% chance of global warming causing
sea rises that would flood coastal cities and cause
hundreds of millions of people to lose their homes
and workplaces, that is a huge risk.
Most scientists would bet that the odds are
much greater than 10 to one.
I = T AP
The more money you
spend (the more
affluent your are), the
more resources you
consume.
I = T AP
It’s remarkable that almost everybody
lives up to their income.
Those earning $30K live in a
small apartment and spend all
their salary.
Those earning $200K live
in a McMansion and spend
all their salary.
I = T AP
Most people spend all they earn
(and even go on credit).
Nobody ever seems to have too
much money.
Translated: People don’t seem
to to be able to stop
accumulating possessions or
improving their lifestyle.
I = T AP
Affluence is not just buying
an SUV.
Affluence is not just buying an
SUV.to single out
It’s convenient
SUV owners as being the
bad guys.
Aren’t SUVs
the worst
vehicles on
the road?
I = T AP
SUVs consume a lot, but affluence is not just buying a big
vehicle.
It’s being able to afford
a Canadian house or
apartment.
It is being able to
buy consumer
items.
It is being able
to pay for a
holiday.
I = T AP
The tragedy of our
world is that…
…it is perfectly logical
and rational for an
individual to go on an
expensive holiday or to
buy a luxurious house
if he or she can afford
it.
I = T AP
We are opportunistic beings,
so it doesn’t seem logical for
an individual to deprive
him/herself if others aren’t.
For more insight on this problem, read:”The Tragedy of the
Commons”, Garrett Hardin
I = T AP
Nobody
Nobody has
comehas
up come up
a solution
to
with a with
solution
to
the “A” part
reducingreducing
the “A” part
the equation.
of the of
equation.
Preaching
poverty
hasn’t worked
I = TA P
Whenever more people
are born than die, we
add to the “P” part of
the equation
I = TA P
Our powerful reproductive instinct:
The reproductive instinct explains
why:
Pubescent boys have wet dreams and
romantic thoughts induce vaginal lubrication in
girls.
Barren women of 40 pine for a baby.
Men ogle women’s buttocks.
Men and women purposefully burden
themselves with raising demanding children.
I = TA P
Humans are naturally
divided into groups,
whether based on
religion, language, or
race.
When there exists no
natural difference, they
create artificial divisions
or clans.
Every one of these groups needs to increase its numbers, thereby
contributing to the “P” part of the I=TAP equation.
I = TA P
Controlling
population
Controlling
goes
against
the
population
reproductive instinct
and against religion.
I = TA P
Very intelligent, well
meaning, well-known
environmentalists have
been concentrating on
the “A” and “T” parts of
the equation to the
total exclusion of the
ever-growing “P” part.
“The Human Element” here does not refer to
the humans that are overpopulating the Earth.
It only refers to what humans can do to
reduce “A” and “T”.
I = TA P
The I = TAP formula requires that we cut
back on all three factors.
But it goes against the grain for humans to voluntarily
reduce ANY one of these three factors.
Harsh measures would be required to reduce our
technology, to earn less money and to exercise population
control.
Intellectually we know this to be true. On an emotional
level we can’t bring ourselves to make any but very
superficial changes.
Chapter 8 will look at what might be the
consequences of peak oil and
overpopulation.
Click icon for
Chapter Choice