3 ms·

The authors data leads me to entirely the opposite conclusion. His data perfectly support the point that we need massive new sources of clean energy (for exampl

The authors data leads me to entirely the opposite conclusion. His data perfectly support the point that we need massive new sources of clean energy (for example, nuclear or even solar which is on an incredible downward cost trend), to support growth. Anyone who has spent time on planes knows that the world is mostly empty. I recently flew from Seoul to Moscow and there was nothing but forest in between. The first visible roads were on the descent to Moscow. If you assume that innovation is impossible, then sure, I can see how he conflates future energy use with CO2. But it's a failing of the piece that he never explicitly states that assumption.

abalashov 11y ago
Perhaps, but to be fair, there are fairly specific geophysical criteria for plopping down a nontrivial human settlement, mainly relating to the water table and agriculture. Inland, arid tundra, for example, isn't good place to found a town, and neither is any place where you can neither grow local food nor deliver it easily from other places. The more anthrocentric aspects, like proximity to transportation networks and economic activity, also play a huge role. All in all, it's not reasonable to suggest that much of the empty space seen from a plane can be filled out with people equally well. Indeed, a disproportionate share of energy use goes toward supporting life in places nature did not will to be particularly habitable. Very expensive contrivances--none altogether successful, and whose sustainability is in doubt--exist to create water and indoor cooling in places like Las Vegas, for example, and to pump water out of New Orleans or parts of the Netherlands. Technology is impressive and can compensate, but neither cheaply nor without all kinds of negative externalities.
- paulsutter 11y ago
  Hmm, to solve those problems, would it help to have massive supplies of clean energy?

abalashov 11y ago

Perhaps, but to be fair, there are fairly specific geophysical criteria for plopping down a nontrivial human settlement, mainly relating to the water table and agriculture. Inland, arid tundra, for example, isn't good place to found a town, and neither is any place where you can neither grow local food nor deliver it easily from other places. The more anthrocentric aspects, like proximity to transportation networks and economic activity, also play a huge role. All in all, it's not reasonable to suggest that much of the empty space seen from a plane can be filled out with people equally well. Indeed, a disproportionate share of energy use goes toward supporting life in places nature did not will to be particularly habitable. Very expensive contrivances--none altogether successful, and whose sustainability is in doubt--exist to create water and indoor cooling in places like Las Vegas, for example, and to pump water out of New Orleans or parts of the Netherlands. Technology is impressive and can compensate, but neither cheaply nor without all kinds of negative externalities.

paulsutter 11y ago
Hmm, to solve those problems, would it help to have massive supplies of clean energy?