By Robert Bériault

PEAK OIL AND THE PEAK OIL AND THE FATE OF HUMANITYFATE OF HUMANITY

Chapter 7 – How We Got Ourselves Into Chapter 7 – How We Got Ourselves Into this Situationthis Situation

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

Impact on the

environment

=

Population

(how many

people)

Affluence(howMuch

money we

spend)

Technology

(how many

processes, tools and goods we

use)

I = TAP

x xI PATIt is a beautifully elegant formula:

Technologymultiplied by the effect of

Affluencemultiplied by the effect of

Population

The I = TAP formula(pronounced: “eye-tap”)

is the multiplier effect

on the environment (Impact) of:

I = TAPYou 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) orAny 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?

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.

I = TAP

Impact = Technology X Affluence X Population

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?

Here’s a concrete example of technology…

I = APT

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

TV

set

s (m

illi

on

s)

1960 2003YEAR

Today the Impact on the environment is about 6.5 times what it was in 1960

Think of this:when TV sets didn’texist they had noenvironmental impact!

3.6 million 24 million

Number of TV sets in Canada

First, we’ll start with the T, Technology factor

I = APT

Affluence means more TV sets

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Per

cen

tag

e o

f sa

lary

1960 2003YEAR

When people have more money, it means more TV sets, which means more environmental impact.

Buying a TV set in 2003 took 11 times less of a Canadian’s income than in 1960.

A TV set cost11% of a 1960 salary

A TV set cost 1%of a 2003 salary

I = T P

Second, we multiply by the A, Affluence factor

A Cost Relative to Wages

Population increased by 1.7 times

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Per

son

s (m

illi

on

s)

1960 2003YEAR

A 74% increase in population meant a 74% increase in the number of TVs…

…and a 74% increase in environmental impact.

There was a 74% increase in the Canadian population between 1960 and 2003

I = TA18 million

32 million

P Increase in Population

Third, we multiply by the P, Population factor

I think that an understanding of how we got into this

situation can be useful in seeking solutions, so bear

with me.

Soil erosionWater contaminationLoss of biodiversityDeath of pollinatorsDeforestationHabitat destructionAtmospheric pollution

I = TAP

Every invention, every improvement to our homes or work places adds to the “T” part of the equation.

I = APT

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 Ecuadorcuts tree with stone axe

I = APT

Perhaps we haven’t recognised that we are animals like others:

Diagram from: www.nrcs.usda.gov/.../ land/pubs/ib5text.html

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.

I = APT

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 self-sustaining.

http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/fs/166-96/fig1.html

I = APT

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 = APT

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 = APT

Growing cities, minerals, pollution

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 citiesGrowing cities

Poor yieldcopper ore Poor yield

copper ore

Mercury pollutionMercury pollution

I = APT

Like the frog…

However, like the frog, we fail to notice

incremental changes. Therefore the “T” part of the equation keeps

on increasing.

I = APT

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 = APT

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 = APT

The more money you spend (the more affluent your are), the more resources you consume.

I = T PA

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 PA

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 PA

Affluence is not just buying an SUV.

Affluence is not just buying an SUV.

It’s convenient to single out SUV owners as being the bad guys.

I = T PA

Aren’t SUVsthe worst

vehicles onthe road?

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.

SUVs consume a lot, but affluence is not just buying a big vehicle.

I = T PA

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 PA

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 PA

Nobody has come up with a solution to reducing the “A” part of the equation.

Nobody has come up with a solution

to reducing the “A” part of the equation.

Preachingpoverty

hasn’t worked

I = T PA

Whenever more people are born than die, we add to the “P” part of the equation

I = TAP

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 = TAP

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 = TAP

Controlling population

Controlling population goes

against the reproductive instinct and against religion.

I = TAP

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 = TAP

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.

I = TAP

Chapter 8 will look at what might be the consequences of peak oil and overpopulation.

Click icon forChapter Choice