dehydrated states of america

[JayB]

The End of this rockin' party will wind down when this is no longer possible, or in other words, when we've grown to our limits.

 

It is also important to recognize that growth is not strictly defined by population size--the quantity and growth rate of consumption per capita is a far more appropriate measure.

 

Yes - anyone who has read or heard of Malthus is familiar with these arguments. They've been around for a while.

 

Neither population-growth nor resource consumption or production per-capita is a static variable that's insensitive to other inputs. Fertility is already at or below the replacement level throughout the developed world, and falling virtually everywhere else where the economy is expanding. As resources become more scarce, the price goes up, and people either change their habbits or use new technologies to reduce their consumption of them, or find substitutes.

 

The only places where the environment gets trashed to the point where they can no longer support their population are those where the economy has been so hobbled by a combination of socialism and/or incompetence and corruption that they cannot produce enough to generate the revenues necessary to pay for food, clothing, etc - let alone generate the additional funds necessary to provide for drinking-water systems, sewage treatment, cooking fuel other than trees, food other than the local wildlife, etc.

 

[crackers]

The only places where the environment gets trashed to the point where they can no longer support their population are those where the economy has been so hobbled by a combination of socialism and/or incompetence and corruption that they cannot produce enough to generate the revenues necessary to pay for food, clothing, etc - let alone generate the additional funds necessary to provide for drinking-water systems, sewage treatment, cooking fuel other than trees, food other than the local wildlife, etc.

 

Like love canal, the stellwagan banks, blahblahblah.

 

Let's face it. If we screw up the environment, it means more jobs for treehuggers when we try to fix it.

[JayB]

The only reason that those sites were even noticed, let alone investigated and dealt with is because the US had the wealth necessary to do so and a citizenry capable of taking effective action.

 

It's quite difficult to argue that the condition of the environment in New York or New England has done anthing but improve since the late 19th century.

[crackers]

The only reason that those sites were even noticed, let alone investigated and dealt with is because the US had the wealth necessary to do so and a citizenry capable of taking effective action.

 

It's quite difficult to argue that the condition of the environment in New York or New England has done anthing but improve since the late 19th century.

 

Damn pesky citizens. Except that the over 4000 radioactive waste containers dumped in and around the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary haven't been cleaned up.

 

Yeah, it might be difficult to argue. Then again, it's usually fifty years or more before you figure out that your cool new industrial technology or chemical process really sucks. There is part of Brooklyn that would certainly be extremely valuable property if it wasn't the site of some of the oldest oil refineries in the world. It's so polluted that they basically plan to ignore it until clean up skills and technology are significantly better.

 

The economic costs of resource degradation are a nascent area of study. And as long as people are using parametric statistical models and the hilarious concept of rational actors, those models and studies probably won't convince me of very much.

[archenemy]

Just to throw another factor that you are already very aware of into the mix: when social pressures to reproduce are placed on women, they do. When the option for controlling their own reproduction is presented, as well as the social support to allow women's value to not be measured by how many sons they produce, women almost inveriably choose to have fewer children with more years between births.

 

I am all for fewer people--then the amount of consumption per person is not such a big deal.

[ashw_justin]

Yes - anyone who has read or heard of Malthus is familiar with these arguments. They've been around for a while.

 

Neither population-growth nor resource consumption or production per-capita is a static variable that's insensitive to other inputs. Fertility is already at or below the replacement level throughout the developed world, and falling virtually everywhere else where the economy is expanding. As resources become more scarce, the price goes up, and people either change their habits or use new technologies to reduce their consumption of them, or find substitutes.

 

The only places where the environment gets trashed to the point where they can no longer support their population are those where the economy has been so hobbled by a combination of socialism and/or incompetence and corruption that they cannot produce enough to generate the revenues necessary to pay for food, clothing, etc - let alone generate the additional funds necessary to provide for drinking-water systems, sewage treatment, cooking fuel other than trees, food other than the local wildlife, etc.

Yes, obviously the population growth has equilibrated in the most developed countries. It is of course a clever insult to imply ignorance of this fact by reference to Malthus (whom I haven't read, but whose narrow models are obviously dated). While our population may be leveling off, we are still highly dependent on other forms of growth--supply, consumption, investment, interest, etc. The economy has functioned beautifully as a grand pyramid scheme, as long as broad economic growth is guaranteed. The limit to this is what I allude to by mention of zero-sum. What happens when there is no more 'free money?' Aren't we already ignoring this to the tune of 9 trillion?

 

The 'tragedy of the commons' manifests in water usage when even a relatively small population manages to consume so much of the supply that it becomes scarce. The usage explodes to fill the limit of supply. Any increase in the supply results not in less scarcity, but in more consumption. The same model fits for many other resources. The basic assumption this allows is that at equilibrium, water will always be scarce. Any attempt to escape this equilibrium, such as the diversion of rivers to irrigate the growth potential of Phoenix, is deluded. Surely it is time to draw the line, and let the system of market principles that you mention go to work in the context of a static supply.

[archenemy]

This post makes no sense whatsoever. Can you dumb it down for those of us who don't use words like equilibrated? Thanks.

[G-spotter]

Same deal as roads: if you build a bigger highway, more people will drive and it will take just as long to sit thru traffic jam to get to work.

[cj001f]

The only reason that those sites were even noticed, let alone investigated and dealt with is because the US had the wealth necessary to do so and a citizenry capable of taking effective action.

 

So there are no environmentalists in non-wealthy countries? That's a rather fatuous statement.

 

It's quite difficult to argue that the condition of the environment in New York or New England has done anthing but improve since the late 19th century.

 

Industrial pollution got substantially worse up until the mid 70s/80s when they oversea'd all of their jobs. Same with farming. The pollution just moved elsewhere.

 

Until we can move production off-planet it's not a particularly relevant argument.

[JayB]

The only reason that those sites were even noticed, let alone investigated and dealt with is because the US had the wealth necessary to do so and a citizenry capable of taking effective action.

 

So there are no environmentalists in non-wealthy countries? That's a rather fatuous statement.

 

It's quite difficult to argue that the condition of the environment in New York or New England has done anthing but improve since the late 19th century.

 

Industrial pollution got substantially worse up until the mid 70s/80s when they oversea'd all of their jobs. Same with farming. The pollution just moved elsewhere.

 

Until we can move production off-planet it's not a particularly relevant argument.

 

There are doubtless people who care about their environment all over the world, but my contention is that their level of concern diminishes as their income approaches bare-subsistence or below-subsistence levels, and that their ability to effect positive environmental change is a function of many variables, virtually all of which change favorably with increasing prosperity.

 

I think someone is confused by the difference between manufacturing output and manufacturing employment

 

American Manufacturing Output

 

 

[JayB]

Yes - anyone who has read or heard of Malthus is familiar with these arguments. They've been around for a while.

 

Neither population-growth nor resource consumption or production per-capita is a static variable that's insensitive to other inputs. Fertility is already at or below the replacement level throughout the developed world, and falling virtually everywhere else where the economy is expanding. As resources become more scarce, the price goes up, and people either change their habits or use new technologies to reduce their consumption of them, or find substitutes.

 

The only places where the environment gets trashed to the point where they can no longer support their population are those where the economy has been so hobbled by a combination of socialism and/or incompetence and corruption that they cannot produce enough to generate the revenues necessary to pay for food, clothing, etc - let alone generate the additional funds necessary to provide for drinking-water systems, sewage treatment, cooking fuel other than trees, food other than the local wildlife, etc.

Yes, obviously the population growth has equilibrated in the most developed countries. It is of course a clever insult to imply ignorance of this fact by reference to Malthus (whom I haven't read, but whose narrow models are obviously dated). While our population may be leveling off, we are still highly dependent on other forms of growth--supply, consumption, investment, interest, etc. The economy has functioned beautifully as a grand pyramid scheme, as long as broad economic growth is guaranteed. The limit to this is what I allude to by mention of zero-sum. What happens when there is no more 'free money?' Aren't we already ignoring this to the tune of 9 trillion?

 

The 'tragedy of the commons' manifests in water usage when even a relatively small population manages to consume so much of the supply that it becomes scarce. The usage explodes to fill the limit of supply. Any increase in the supply results not in less scarcity, but in more consumption. The same model fits for many other resources. The basic assumption this allows is that at equilibrium, water will always be scarce. Any attempt to escape this equilibrium, such as the diversion of rivers to irrigate the growth potential of Phoenix, is deluded. Surely it is time to draw the line, and let the system of market principles that you mention go to work in the context of a static supply.

 

Infinite cost-free resources as the sole driver of economic growth and a static set of resources that are completely insensitive to price, effective demand, etc in a single post.

 

Bravo.

 

Now, a moment of silence as I extinguish my whale-oil lamp in despair.

[cj001f]

I think someone is confused by the difference between manufacturing output and manufacturing employment

 

 

 

I think JayB has never opened his eyes when driving through upstate new york. He could quickly see they've neither output nor employment in manufacturing. The same with textile plants in New England. The products that used to be made in those places are now being made in China where the pollution is much the same as it was, just a different place

[JayB]

 

 

[JayB]

I think someone is confused by the difference between manufacturing output and manufacturing employment

 

 

 

Think JayB has never opened his eyes when driving through upstate new york. He could quickly see they've neither output nor employment in manufacturing. The same with textile plants in New England

 

I've driven all over New England, and Upstate New York, while casting my gaze on an infinity of old mills and often paddle through the remains of dams once used to power the Mills there. If there's any lingering effective demand for whatever it is that they made, it's clear that someone somewhere else can make whatever they were making more efficiently or with better value for the consumer, or both. The real question is why both manufacturers and the people that they once employed have fled New England/Upstate like they were on fire, and I think that this has less to do with changes inside the Mill-House than it does with changes inside the Statehouse.

 

 

Hooray for declining employment in the manufacturing sector. Weee....

 

I haven't seen the data set for manufacturing output from New England, but I'd be surprised to see an absolute decline, much less one that fell as precipitously as manufacturing employment, even after accounting for all of the micro-mill carnage.

 

 

[Dechristo]

Once it gets scarce enough it'll make economic sense to install graywater and rain-catchment systems in homes, etc, etc, etc and people will start to use way less clean water, and recycle the water that they do use 2-3X before it hits the sewer. There'll also be plenty of incentive for agricultural and industrial users to conserve water when prices get high enough. Yawn.

 

 

In Colorado, it's illegal to collect water from your roof.

 

I'd imagine that in Colorado this is a water rights issue more than anything else.

 

Correct. The State claims it all as their water.

 

Some of the areas where I live have very poor soil percolation rates, which makes conventional septic tank/leach field operation problematic. Another fellow and myself looked into, and procured the state-wide distribution rights to, an aerobic-based residential-sized blackwater treatment system that rendered ALL waste from a household into clear, clean water. The system was developed at Baylor University and is now used extensively in the Gulf States where ground water levels are too high to allow for conventional leach field use. There, the effluent is used to water lawns and gardens with no ill effect to humans or animals.

 

The State of Colorado would only allow the use of these systems if testing were performed daily in compliance with the same standards as a municipal water treatment system. Compliance with water treatment quality was not a problem. The cost of the daily testing proved infeasible.

[cj001f]

Hooray for declining employment in the manufacturing sector. Weee....

 

I haven't seen the data set for manufacturing output from New England, but I'd be surprised to see an absolute decline, much less one that fell as precipitously as manufacturing employment.

 

 

Yes, the moondance is a perfect icon for your fatuosity.

 

The goods New England used to produce are being produced elsewhere in the world, and that production is polluting just as much it did when it was in America.

 

Arguing over the $ value of manufacturing output is completely irrelevant to this argument unless you've suddenly decided you no longer need cloths.

 

As for your "everywhere" argument - you wouldn't want to spend time on the industrial sites of Western New York. the "statehouse" has forced to deal with the burden of bankrupt companies who laid the burden of cleaning up their mess on the state. The younger western states aren't particularly caring about that - there's noway UT can deal with the water demands of it's population in the future, that hasn't stopped their growth plans.

[JayB]

The only places where pollution hasn't declined relative to output are the very same countries where decades of horrid mismanagement or repression are still working their magic.

 

But - sure - manufacturing hasn't become more efficient anywhere, so it stands to reason that the amount of pollution generated per unit output hasn't changed a bit over time either.

 

 

 

 

[cj001f]

he dances, he bobs, he weaves.... he's Ken Mehlmann!

[JayB]

Hooray for declining employment in the manufacturing sector. Weee....

 

I haven't seen the data set for manufacturing output from New England, but I'd be surprised to see an absolute decline, much less one that fell as precipitously as manufacturing employment.

 

 

Yes, the moondance is a perfect icon for your fatuosity.

 

The goods New England used to produce are being produced elsewhere in the world, and that production is polluting just as much it did when it was in America.

 

Arguing over the $ value of manufacturing output is completely irrelevant to this argument unless you've suddenly decided you no longer need cloths.

 

As for your "everywhere" argument - you wouldn't want to spend time on the industrial sites of Western New York. the "statehouse" has forced to deal with the burden of bankrupt companies who laid the burden of cleaning up their mess on the state. The younger western states aren't particularly caring about that - there's noway UT can deal with the water demands of it's population in the future, that hasn't stopped their growth plans.

 

The percentage of the total tax-burden that's used to fund environmental clean-ups in this part of the country make up a miniscule portion of the total tab, and has little or nothing to do with either the fate of the plants that you are lamenting or the absence of anything to replace them.

 

[cj001f]

 

 

 

The correlation looks mind bogglingly strong

 

 

Excuse me while i got the the Friedmanian paradise that is Singapore

[JayB]

 

 

[G-spotter]

 

US States named for Countries with similar GDPs

 

Note how well it lines up with JayB's high-cost states.

Conclusion: high costs of doing business boost GDP!

[G-spotter]

OH HAI IM IN UR ARCTIC GETTIN TOXICER

[cj001f]

again, not seeing the correlation that JayB is hoping for, much less causation

[ashw_justin]

Infinite cost-free resources as the sole driver of economic growth and a static set of resources that are completely insensitive to price, effective demand, etc in a single post.

My point is that in a country this rich and resource-hungry, expanding supply of certain resources can only supplicate demand temporarily. Expansion is the holy grail of a growing economy, but ceases to be an option once resources are limiting (which is what I meant by "static supply"). There will always be high demand for water, especially in a desert metropolis. The sooner they figure this out, the better, because no matter how many rivers they divert into Phoenix, even if the can afford to, they will always be short on water. They will have severely molested the environment in an attempt to escape this fact, and in the end, they will have to learn to conserve anyway. Might as well leave the rivers alone and figure it out sooner than later.