Where is our planet Earth heading to in the next century

1. Introduction

The purpose of this article is not to describe a doom scenario. It will try to describe a process that follows natural laws. It will show the process, which concerns directly the continuation of human society of this planet Earth. The irreversible processes of nature will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race. In geological history, the extinction of a species is not a new phenomenon. Since life started 3.9 billion years ago 99.0 % of the all the species became extinct.

We can only live on this earth, when we have enough energy at our disposal. Our society is using energy from the sun (old and new sunlight) and from deeper parts of the earth. Primitive civilizations of gatherers and hunters have used and are still using only renewable energy resources (plants, animals) in a sustainable economy. Agricultural and industrial civilizations are using in addition non-renewable energy and mineral resources (oil, gas, coal, iron, copper etc) in a therefore non-sustainable economy.

The output of the energy cycle is heat and waste. This is according the second law of thermodynamics an irreversible process.
(Link 2. More on the detailed information on the laws on thermodynamics click here)

Figure 1: The irreversible process of burning energy resources into heat and waste. (After Daly, 1993 and Rees, 1996)

2. Geological history of our universe, earth and life

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (500 BC-428 BC):

In the "beginning all particles were mixed together in a non-differentiated mass"

As a geologist, I owe you some information on the history of the universe, earth and life, before talking about the depletion of our natural resources.

Our universe started probably with a big bang about 15-20 billion years ago, when all energy was pressed together. Time and space were created! Time has only one direction and is not irreversible. Genesis first three words: "In the beginning…" also implicates that time was created. The question what was for the beginning was cannot be asked, because we can not think in timeless dimensions.

(Link 3. More on the formation of the universe to the creation of our sun click here)

Our sun was formed nearly 5 billion years ago from a gaseous matter. The gravity acting on the matter caused a contraction. When the temperature was high enough the process of nuclear fusion could start. Hydrogen is transformed in helium. This process creates an enormous amount of energy. A part of this energy is heating up the sun, another part escapes. The sun has ample supply of energy for a lifetime of 10 billion years. Now the sun is half her lifetime!

In one billion years from now, the sun will expand to such an extent, that the temperature on earth will be 1300 degrees of Celsius. All water on earth will evaporate, leaving the world as dry and lifeless as Venus. After all the hydrogen in our Sun is consumed and transformed in helium gravitational, contraction of the core will resume. Via some nuclear process, the sun will finally end up as a white dwarf.

What about the formation of the planets circling around the sun?

They were formed from gas and dust that stayed behind after the formation of the protostar, which developed later in our sun. A process of colliding and accretion formed protoplanets. Finally by their gravitational attraction to each other the planets are formed as we know them today. This process lasted about hundred million years. The planets were orientated in one horizontal plane due to the gravity forces from the sun. Each has it own nearly circular movement around the sun. The outward 'planet' Pluto has a different orientation in relation to the horizontal plane (17 degrees). (Some scientists are not anymore considering Pluto as a real planet, but more as an asteroid) .

1: Sun, 2: Mercury, 3: Venus, 4: Earth, 5: Mars, 6: Jupiter, 7: Saturn, 8. Uranus, 9: Neptune, 10: Pluto

The formation of our earth was a result of the process of accretion. Large bodies slamming into our planet produced immense heat in the interior, melting the cosmic dust. The resulting furnace - 200 to 400 kilometers below the surface - is responsible for the volcanic eruptions on the surface of the earth. About 4.4 billion years ago the earth differentiated into layered structure.

Our earth is now just in a zone around the sun where fluid water can exist. When we go nearer the sun the temperature will be too high and all water will evaporate. Earlier Venus was also in the habitable zone when the sun was less bright than at present. When we go farther from the sun than the habitable zone, liquid water will turn into ice. (Kasting, 1998)

That water can exist in the liquid form was essential for the formation of organic life on earth. There are many theories on the origin of water on earth. Some think that ice clumps of material collided with the Earth during the initial formation of the planet, injecting huge quantities into the atmosphere in the form of steam. Much of this water was lost back into space, enough was left over to fill large basins.

About 3.9 billion years ago the first living organism appeared on earth. These are very small cells without a nucleus (prokaryotes). These primitive cells are not so very different from some of our present bacteria. The entire genetic material consists of a single chromosome made of a circular string of DNA that is in direct contact with the rest of the cell. About 3 billion years ago these wanted to absorb more food. They lost their cell wall, there was now a flexible membrane, that was able to absorb nutrients from the surrounding food supply, and gradually the genetic material was formed. Small prokaryotes have evolved into giant cells displaying some of the main properties of complex cells (eukaryotes). These cells lack mitochondria.

When the first cells appeared there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Then gradually by the process of photosynthesis oxygen came in the atmosphere.

Joseph Priestly discovered the production of oxygen in photosynthesis in 1780. He placed a sprig of mint in a glass jar and put a mouse in glass bell. He connected both with a tube so that air can go freely vice versa. To his amazement, he found several days later that the mouse was still alive. The plant used the carbon dioxide, exhaled from the mouse, under the influence of sunlight to produce oxygen. The mouse inhaled the oxygen produced by the plant. This is a sustainable society!

Figure 5: the process of photosynthesis. (after Stryer, 1988 and Rubinowitch, 1948)

Oxygen first entered the atmosphere in appreciable quantity some two billion years ago, to reach a stable level 1.5- % billion years ago. Algae produced this oxygen. This toxic oxygen was catastrophic for animals that were used to live in an oxygen free atmosphere. They had to adopt themselves. (The oxygen holocaust). The mitochondria came as a host in to the eukaryotic cell. It produced the energy rich molecule ATP.

Figure 6: the capture of mitochondria in the eukaryote cell

This life saving mitochondria is paradoxically also one of the reasons why our cells eventually all will die. One of the reasons is that by the process of making the energy rich molecule ATP free radicals are produced that are very toxic to genetic material. Fortunately, a double membrane of the cell nucleus protects this toxic influence, but the mitochondrial DNA is not protected and is vulnerable to these free radicals. Mitochondria have its own genetic material and are derived from the female’s parent. Our germ cells give us the potential for immortality, but perhaps it is our mother’s mitochondria DNA that tempers its mortality. The deleterious mutations in the mitochrondrial DNA during an organism lifetime may be a major contributory factor to the aging process leading ultimately to the death of the host. The more metabolically active the cell is the higher the rate of production of oxygen free radicals in the mitochondria. These radicals chemically damage the molecules in their immediate vicinity especially mitochondria DNA.

The present 20 % of oxygen in our atmosphere is the result of photosynthetic activity. The presence of oxygen was a protection for the ultraviolet radiation.

The ultraviolet radiation splits the oxygen into the highly unstable atomic form O, which can combine back into O2 and 03 (Ozone). This precious layer of Ozone makes it possible for organic life to develop from single celled organisms to single cells organism with a nucleus to multi cellular organisms, like Homo sapiens.

There are indications that 700 million years ago the total surface of the earth was covered with ice. This is in the transition zone from Precambrian to the Cambrian. In this period we have the first macroscopic life in the world oceans, the so-called Ediacaran fauna. It is assumed that the ice melted by a global warming due to the emission of carbon dioxide by volcanic activity. The rise of oxygen in the atmosphere may be the reason that this Ediacaran fauna could develop so abruptly. These creatures dominated the earth for tens of millions of years right up to the beginning of the Cambrian. One group of scientists believes that they were the forerunners of modern animals, whereas others think that they may constitute a separate and failed experiment in animal life. In any case, they died out well before the Cambrian biota evolved.

540 million years ago in the Cambrian there was an explosion of life. The body plans that evolved in the Cambrian served as blueprints for those seen today. Animal life evolved not gradually. During long times where apparently nothing much happened and periods of great changes as massive extinction's and new species formation separating periods of relatively quiet periods. There are a great number of theories on these massive extinctions. Five major mass extinctions have been distinguished.

The study of these mass extinctions is very important, because we are probably heading toward the sixth mass extinction!
(Link 5 More on the mass extinctions click here)

3. The history of human mankind

The moment the Dinosaurs disappeared from this earth was the moment the mammals waited for. They could develop rapidly. The first mammals were however even older than the dinosaurs. The mammals like the Therapsides were already present 250 million years ago. They lived in the shadow of the mighty reptiles. They were nocturnal living animals. In the beginning of the Tertiary period (60 million years ago) the mammals left their hiding places.

Figure 7: The evolution from the Plesiadapsis to the modern man (after Sarnat and Netsky, 1981).

The species like the Plesiadapsis were not bigger than a cat. They evolved in primates. The first human or Homo Habiles emerged during the Pliocene. This species was replaced by Homo erectus who invented fire 750 000 years ago. In the Pleistocene Homo Sapiens came on earth, 35 000 years ago Homo Sapiens sapiens. The modern man has not much changed since then. According to the latest findings all the humans today can be traced along maternal lines of descent to a woman who lived about 200 000 years ago, probably in Africa. Modern humans arose in one place and spread elsewhere (Sarnat and Netsky, 1981).

In the beginning, our species was centered on gathering. The small amount of meat in the diet was probably scavenged rather than hunted (Blumenschine and Cavallo, 1992). Some 100 000 years ago man started hunting. Apparently, the gather-hunter existence was successful, and there was no direct need for innovations. The investment of energy in gathering and hunting has provided man's livelihood for more than 99 percent of history (Kemp 1971). 35.000 years ago man made symbolic tools. (White 1989).

10 000 a year we started to domesticate plants and animals. It enabled us to become more productive and efficient. Agriculture demanded a division of labor. The gatherer-hunter diet was highly variable, using a great number of plants for food; with farming, these sources were vastly reduced. The increase in productivity per unit of land led to considerable increase in human population. On the other hand, the control gained by the domestication of plants and animals brought an increase of dependence. They need a technical and organization apparatus to make this control possible. It also made these societies more vulnerable.

Society started to become hierarchical. The beginning of the division between rich and poor, enslavement by priests, kings and bosses. This increased social stratification with a division of people in upper and lower classes with greater of lesser access to power, property and prestige.

The human population on Earth two million years ago maybe 10.000. At the beginning of the agricultural revolution, it had five million and at the time of Christ, the population increased to 200 million.

Grazing and fire cleared land for agriculture. Fertilization increased more food. The domestication of animals like goats, sheep, dogs, cows also helped to increase the world population. Cattle and goats converted grass of little use to human, into milk and milk products like cheese. Vast areas that could previously support only a few hunters could now support much larger populations of shepherds. Horses provided power for pulling ploughs and carrying loads. The agricultural revolution made possible the first towns and cities. The first cities arose some 5500 years ago in regions in mid latitude river valleys. First along the Euphrates in Mesopotamia, then the Nile valley in Egypt, to the Indus of India, to the eastern region of the Mediterranean and at last along the Yellow River in China. The cities of Mesoamerica evolved independently. It is not accidental that these civilizations were in these riverdeltas. The land around these rivers was flooded and rich new soil was deposited each year. The farmers were able to control flooding.

Figure 8: World earliest cities evolved in river delta's (After Sjoberg, 1965)

People built permanent homes and shelters for their food supplies. Civil institutions such as courts, religious centers and market places were developing. The rise of the cities led to a further division of labor. Some people stayed farmer, but others became experts on masonry, carpentry, wood making, etc. The dense population in towns also increased diseases and epidemics.

The earliest human societies have been matriarchal. The women were the central figures. They were essential for the small groups of hunter-gatherers for their role in bearing and education of children. In the agricultural society, the man became dominant. Kings and emperors were ruling society. Human civilizations came and went. Political and economical structures change over the time.

The cradle of our European civilization was in the area between the Euphrates and Tigris. The Mesopotamian civilization laid the basis for many systems of our civilization. They invented a practical scripture, the first vehicle with wheels, written law books. The week had seven days named after the sun, moon and the five planets. (If they should have known the other three planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto we should have had a ten days week!). The day had 24 hours, the hour sixty minutes, and the minute sixty seconds. Mathematics played an important role. The decimal as well as the sexagesimal system was used.

The first people in the Mesopotamian area had a democratic society. When the little villages grew out to large cities people became more aggressive. The big struggle was to obtain land that could be well irrigated. To defend their cities against attacks they choose the bravest strongest man who could lead them to victory. The big man named "lugal" in Sumerian language meant king. This kingmanship became hereditary, dynastic and despotic. He was the city king and their spiritual leader.

" Until 2400 BC, Sumerians had managed the problem of dwindling yields by cultivating new land, thereby ensuring the consistent food supply surpluses needed to support their armies and bureaucracies. But now they had reached the limits of agricultural expansion. And over the next three centuries accumulating salts drove crop yields down more than 40 percent. The crippled production, combined with an ever-growing population, led to shrinking food reserves, which in turn reduced the ranks of soldiers and civil servants. By 1800 BD, Sumerian agriculture had effectively collapsed and this once glorious civilization faded into obscurity" (Gardner, 1997)

Ironically, a Sumerian poet says: "The man has no rival more on earth".

This statement is a good moment to end this review on the history of mankind, because our civilization is based on the Sumerian civilization. We will see what our civilization has done and will do to the planet earth in the future!

4. What will happen on this planet earth until the year 2025?

"The road to the future leads us smack into the wall. We simply ricochet off the alternatives that destiny offers: a demographic explosion that triggers social chaos and spreads death, nuclear delirium and quasi-annihilation of the species. Our survival is no more than a question of 25, 50 or perhaps 100 years"(Jacques Cousteau)

The first of January 2025 is only 9380 days, 225.120 hours, 13.507.200 minutes, or 810.432.000 seconds, from us away!

In this period, the world will probably face many problems to overcome. The moment will come that we are confronted with the fact that our fossil fuels will be depleted. It will not anymore be possible to supply the world population with enough necessities for a reasonable life on earth.

In order to survive on the planet earth a human being needs:

1. Shelter (heating and illumination*)
2. Production, transportation and communication means
3. Clean air, fresh water, and enough food
4. Guarantee of safety
5. Human reproduction
6. Health

(* A strange thing happened to me, when I looked in the English dictionary for the correct translation of the Dutch word "verlichting" (English: illumination). At that very moment, the electricity fell out in our town for only a couple of seconds. It erased the just written text from my computer! Maybe a warning sign?).

At present, we are facing a number of big problems. We will try to analyze the interrelation and interaction of these earthy problem conditions.

      1.       The exponential growth of the world population.
2.       The exponential growth of the urbanization. Density of population in urban areas gives more crime and violence
3.       Depletion of fossil and renewable energy resources will lead to drastic restriction in production, transportation and communication means.
4.       Clean air will be endangered through burning of fossil energy resources for transportation, industry and trade. Fresh water shortage owing to deforestation, desertification, destruction of arable land and soil       erosion. Not enough food production owing to scarcity of fossil en renewable energy, insufficient arable lands, exhaustion of fish, extinction of plant and animal species.
5.       Warfare is necessary to secure or to conquer energy resources, water wells, arable land, fishing grounds.
6.       Death through aids and other contagious diseases like malaria, cholera, and tuberculosis.

A technological solution of these problems is not yet available; as long as human mankind is striving for more and more production and consumption. Nature will take over, hunger, war, diseases will diminish the world population to sustainable proportions.

"Unless we can contain the twin explosion of population and consumption, all other measures of conservation and natural hazard avoidance will be no better than putting Band-Aids over mortal wounds, or talking a aspirin for cancer" (E-an Zen, President Geological Society of America)

The growth of the world population will cause that a great number of people on this planet do not have or barely have these six essential conditions for a descent life. In the year 2025 this also may apply to people who are at this moment secured of a high standard of living.

Since the beginning of human mankind 200.000 years ago, we can clearly see an unprecedented growth:

Our guess is however that the 9 billion will not be reached, because at that moment we do not have enough natural resources to feed this number of people on Earth and also the fertility declines. It was exponential since 1990 which shows an inflection point with an absolute growth of 90 million a year but now the growth is down to 78 millions. The growth is not anymore exponential. Everything, which goes up, must go down.

Every second 4.2 people are born and 1.7 die. A staggering increase of 2.5 people per second or over 78 million in one year. The consumption per capita of the world population grows at a quicker rate than the increase in number of people. When the population doubles the world economy quadruples. The fertility declines in the developed nations. This fact does not help much because 95% of the increase is in the underdeveloped nations. Half the world is under the age of 25. Forty-five percent of the Africans are under the age of 15. Although the growth in China is only 1.2 %, it means that next year there will be 15 million more Chinese children.

Politicians are overlooking the fact that the population problem does not stand only. It is highly interconnected with poverty and local environment.(Bartlett, 1993,1994, 1997). None of these three elements directly causes the other two; they rather influence each other, and are in turn influenced by the others.

Data on the status of women from 79 so-called Third World countries display an unmistakable pattern: high fertility, high rates of illiteracy, low share of paid employment and a high percentage at home for no pay. All these factors interact together.

In sub-Saharan Africa a women needs to have 6 to 8 children to stay alive, compared with the fertility rate from 1.5-1.9 in the developed countries. As resources (firewood, water) become increasingly sparse and distant, additional hands become more valuable for the daily tasks, creating a demand for families to have more children. Child labor becomes more valuable to parents spurring a vicious circle that traps families in poverty (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1990). All this contributes to social instability and civil strife. Scarcity of renewable resources is already contributing to violent conflicts in many parts of the world. These conflicts may foreshadow a surge of violence in coming decades in the poor countries with their shortages of water, forests and especially fertile land, coupled with rapidly expanding populations. (Dasgupta, 1995).

Medical science diminishes death by diseases and accidents. Technology makes it possible to live in big cities. Problems of sewage disposal and water delivery are technologically solved. Transportation makes it possible to bring people from the urban areas to the city and vice versa.

By accelerating increase of people on this earth, the number of illiterate people is growing. In 1900 we had a world population of 1.6 billion, in 1995 5.75 billion. In this period, the number of illiterate people has grown from 300 million to 1 billion.

98 percent of the increase is in the developing countries, two third are women. Each year an increase of 30 to 50 million! China and India together have more than 50 % of all the illiterate people. Especially high is the percentage in ethnical minority groups. The world percentage is 27%, whereas within ethnical minority groups it is 78%.

Then there is the problem that humanity, as a whole is growing older. In 1900, there were 10 million to 17 million people aged 65 or older, less than 1 percent of the total population. In 1992, there were 342 million people in that age group, 6.2 percent. The rise in life expectancy is a nightmare for policymakers, because the social structures have not kept up with the boom of old people. In 1998, we will have 9 million people older than 65 years. In 2050, this number will grow to 21 million. 97% is on the account of the third world. (Olshansky, 1993)

Another impact of the population growth and the resource scarcity are the increasing numbers of people immigrating from the poor to the rich world. In the US, there was a legal immigration of about 570.000 a year in 1988, which accounts for roughly 25% of the annual population growth in the US. (Mann, 1988). However, there is a growing hostility in the US toward this immigration. Many in the US are calling for stringent limits on immigration. In Europe, there is a growing tendency to restrict immigration.

6. The world trend of urbanization

The exponential growth of urbanization causes an increase of homeless people. There is not enough heating and illumination by scarcity of energy. Climate changes through pollution causes flooding and other disasters creating more homeless people.

The first industrial cities appeared in England. From then on it is the dominant urban form throughout the world replacing forever the Pre-industrial City, man's first urban creation (Sjoberg, 1965).

In earlier times, only 20% of the world population were living in cities. The industrial revolution, which dramatically reversed the distribution of population between village and city, has changed this drastically. Nowadays there is a strong tendency to leave the countryside and try to find one's luck in the big cities. The movement of population from the center of the city outward to an ever expanding periphery has been going on since last century (Blumenfeld, 1965). This urbanization has probably more influence on biological, geological and chemical systems on our children and then on all earlier generations. Three different processes fuel urban population growth: natural growth, migration from rural areas to cities, incorporation of rural surround. Since 1950, the number of people living in cities has grown from 500 million to 2.6 billion in 1996. In 2006, more than half the world population will live in big cities. Between 20 to 30 million people move to cities every year.

Figure 10: The shift in the top ten world biggest cities in 65 years (1950 to 2015), from the developed to the developing countries

The new trend of urbanization causes a number of serious problems: pollution, crime, unemployment, and diseases. The urban population is growing at a much faster rate than the population as a whole. There are now an estimated 600 million people in urban areas who cannot meet their basic needs for shelter, water and health from their own resources.

This urbanization trend costs much more energy, commuting, transporting raw materials, constructing infrastructure, and powering commercial buildings. With fewer farms, they have to feed more people so the use of mechanization, transportation and fertilizer will increase, entailing the consumption of still more energy and oil.

Life in most of the urban area in the developing world is miserable. 27.7 per cent of this population lives below the official poverty-limit. Some shocking figures: 48% are living in slums, in Lagos 58%, in Bombay 57%. Inadequate housing is a major contributor to social breakdown, with domestic violence, unintended pregnancy and high rates of violent crime and illegal drugs. Not only poor housing is observed in the developing countries, but also in the rich country United States where 250.000 to over 3 million people are homeless.

Cities draw with the promise of higher living standards, but for a great number of people waits. With this urban development, the risk for the spreading of diseases is considerably greater. In the slums were people live malnourished, with faulty sanitation, unsafe water, and polluted air, they are easy targets for all sorts of bacteria and viruses.

Robert Kaplan (1994) who traveled through West Africa is predicting that Africa faces crisis caused by overpopulation and urbanization:

" Give that oil-rich Nigeria is a bellwether for the region-- its population of roughly 90 million equals the population of all the other West African states combined-- it is apparent that Africa faces cataclysms that could make Ethiopian and Somalian famines pale in comparison. This is especially so because Nigeria's population, including its largest city, Lagos*, whose crime, pollution and overcrowding make it the cliché par excellence of Third World urban dysfunction, is set to double during the next twenty-five years, while the country continues to deplete its natural resources".

(*In 2015, Lagos will be the third biggest city on earth).

Thirty years ago Garrett Hardin wrote an article in Science (1968) under the title: "The tragedy of the commons".

In this classic, Hardin illustrates why communities everywhere are heading for tragedy. We make an effort to review his most important statements. It may help us understand the problems of today and the future.

"The population problem cannot be solved in a technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the game of tick-tack-toe. (…) But, in terms of the practical problems that we must face in the next few generations with the foreseeable future technology, it is clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not - during the immediate future - assume that the world available to the terrestrial human population is finite. "Space" is no escape. A finite world can support only a finite population; population growth must eventually equal zero. (…)

It is the freedom in the "commons" that will bring disaster. All commons, like air, water, ground was in the beginning public property. In the beginning of our mankind, the people respected these commons".

An important principle is the carrying capacity of a certain region on earth.

It gives the limit of a certain number of people living on a specific area on earth that can live on the long term in harmony with their environment from which they are living.

It implies a sustainable development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. If we look at the world of today, it is fully clear that a certain number of people (in the developed countries) increase their carrying capacity by importing locally scarce resources from other parts of the world. They import the surplus carrying capacity of export regions. There is however not a net gain in carrying capacity when we are considering it on a global scale. It reduces the carrying capacity of the export regions.

It is of importance to note that our economy gives us the impression that it can increase or maintain a sustainability growth through technology or trade. This is an illusion. For example, the more advanced techniques are in recovering oil from the earth the quicker the depletion. Another example is the high tech catching technology of fishing leading to a quicker depletion of the fish from the oceans. The intensive agriculture may be more productive than the low input practices in the short term, but it also increases the rate of soil and water depletion. The gains in carrying capacity of trade are another illusion. Commodity trade may give a local population some relief, but it must be extracted from other places. Cheap imports lower the incentive for people to conserve their own loca

Figure 11: Carrying capacity. The Netherlands depends on the ecological productivity of an area almost 15 times larger then the entire country. (After Rees, 1996).
By an exponential growth of the world population, there will by on global scale a net result of shrinking carrying capacity. When all the 6 billion people living today on the earth were to live like the current standard of living in the rich countries (US), we need a total productive land requirement of 26 billion ha. At this moment, we have 13 billion ha of land of which only 8.8 billion ha are productive cropland, pasture or forest. We need therefore an area of two extra planets!

We have so far only taken in account the productive land without considering the accelerating depletion of fossil resources. The wealthy nations with a quarter of the world's population use 75% of the global resources. It needs not much imagination that this situation cannot last. The poorer nations will want their share. As we have seen the carrying capacity on our planet is inadequate to meet their justified demands. The result of all this will be a global crisis and a breakdown of human global society. In the past, we have seen the collapses of a great number of civilizations. However, they were not on a global scale as we are facing today. The world is one global economy. Our earth ecosystem is a developing, finite, non-growing and a materially closed system.

1. Sustainability has to mean, " for a time period long compared to a human lifetime"
2. Exponential arithmetic shows that steady growth of numbers of things for long periods is impossible

The inescapable observation that follows from these two facts is that the term "sustainable growth" is self-contradicting:
"A misunderstanding of exponential arithmetic is one of our most dramatic shortcomings of mankind". (Bartlett 1997)

The increase in any doubling time is approximately equal to the sum of all the preceding growth!
When we are dealing with exponential growth we do not need to have an accurate estimate of the size of resources in order to make a reliable estimate of how long the resources will last.We do not realize that a steady moderate growth (2 or 3 %) gives an astronomically large number in a modest period. Our political leaders completely lack the implication of this fact.

Grant (1992) gave some mathematical examples of the power of exponential growth:

* Even if the entire mass of the earth were petroleum, it would be exhausted in 342 years, if pre-1973 rates of increase of consumption were maintained.
* Assume that we have one million years' supply of something- anything with a fixed supply- at current rates of consumption. Then increase the rate by just 2 percent per year (very roughly the current world population growth rate). How long would the supply last? Answer: 501 years!
* At current rates, how long would it take for the world's human population to reach the absurdity of one person on each square meter of ice-free land? Answer: 600 years

Another aspect, which is detrimental to sustainability, is the increasing complexity of our society.

"Hunter-gathering societies contain no more than a few dozen distinct personalities, while modern European census recognize 10.000-20.000 unique occupational roles and industrial societies may contain over more than 1.000.000 different kinds of social personalities. Complexity can be both beneficial and detrimental. The increasing of complexity is in the beginning favorable. Thereafter it evolves in a more costly direction. It reaches a point where continued investment in complexity yields lower returns. It has entered the phase where it starts to become vulnerable to collapse. The collapse finally is a rapid transformation to a lower degree of complexity, involving less energy consumption".

One outcome of diminishing returns shows the collapse of the Roman economy. To raise new funds they debased their silver currency to such an extent that the following inflation devastated their economy. With raising taxes marginal lands were abandoned and the population declined. Peasants could not support large families. This is a good example of how increasing complexity to resolve problems leads to higher costs, diminishing returns, alienation of a support population, economic weakness and collapse. It will be interesting to watch what happens with the world economy today. (Asian and Russian crisis).

About the crisis in Russia already in 1990, Chandler and others had foresight view:

"Italian socialist writer Antonio Gramsci wrote 60 years ago, in very different context, in Prison Notebooks that the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in the interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear. Most socialist nations seem to be headed for a new system of greater market reliance, but because no nation has ever made the transition from a planned to a market economy, much remains to be learned. With regard to energy, success will depend part on the cooperation of Western nations and corporations. But the tough issues can be solved only from within".

The "happy" few on one side: 358 billionaires control assets that are greater than the combined annual income of countries with 45% of the world population, and at the other side 1.2 billion people below the poverty level.

In 1993, 20% of world population receives 82.7% of the world income. These richest 20 % have: 80 % of world trade, 95% of loans, 80% of domestic savings, 80.5% of world investments, 70% of world energy, 75% of all metals, 85% of timbers, 60% of food supplies.

The average American owned and consumed twice as much in 1990 as in 1948, but enjoyed much less free time." The meaning of being an American has changed from being a citizen in a democracy to being a consumer in a market place" (Vicki Robin, Consume Less Now). Recent findings show that American parents spend 40% less time with their children now than in 1965, and spend nine times more minutes a week shopping than playing with their children. Employed Americans are spending 163 more hours per year on the job than they did in 1969, and an average of nine hours per week behind the wheel. It is estimated that up to seven million children in America are looking after themselves every day.

540 tons of construction materials, 18 tons of paper, 23 tons of wood, 16 tons of metals, 32 tons of organic materials; 10 to 15 times as much as people in the underdeveloped world. (Orr, 1994)

Between 1960 and 1990 the annual tonnage of US solid municipal waste has more than doubled (National Wildlife Foundation 1997)
The gap between the rich and the poor has doubled in the period from 1960 to 1991.Already in 1958 John F. Kennedy, as junior Senator from Massachusetts recognized this serious threat of this widening gap.

"In the midst of this age of plenty, the standard of living for much of the world is declining, their poverty and economic backwardness are increasing and their share of the world's population is growing. In the world community of nations, the rich are getting richer while the poorer are getting poorer… First of all is the rapid, overwhelming and utterly unprecedented world population growth".

In 1960 was the ratio of the richest 20% to the poorest 20 %: 30 : 1, in 1991 was the ratio 61 : 1!

Stunning wealth on one side and absolute poverty on the other side. Some statistics will give an idea of the magnitude of world poverty:

      ·         15-20 million people are starving
·         14 million children die every year mainly from lack of food (one child every second)
·         200 million children world wide work in factories as virtual slaves
·         1 million women die each year from preventable health problems
·         100 million people are homeless
·         500 million people have just enough food not to dye.
·         700 million people are unemployed (35 million in the industrialized countries)

Not only in the poor countries is poverty. What to think of the poverty in the rich US: 35 million people live in poverty and one fifth of all US children!

The number of homeless families (mother and children) in the US increased from 27% in 1985 to 34% in 1989. Every night between 61.500 and 100.000 homeless children sleep in emergency shelters, welfare hotels, abandoned buildings or cars and in the streets.

Than to realize that there is enough food on earth to feed every world citizen. Hunger is a matter of poverty and accessibility to food. Overpopulation is not the cause of hunger. It is the other way round. Hunger is the real cause. A poor family needs many children to work in the field or in the city to add some income for the family.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that the undernourished people in the developing countries have increased from 822 million in 1990-1992 to 828 million in 1994-1996. (State of Food and Agriculture Report, November 1998).

It is the more so tragic when we compare the prognoses for the wealth on Earth of more than thirty years ago with the present reality.
In 1967 Herman Kahn, an authority on world futures:

"The year 2000 will find a rather large island of wealth surrounded by a certain measure of relative misery (…) more than 90 per cent will live in nations that have broken out of the historical $50-$200 per capita range. But for the first time in history the great mass of people in the seven large and partially industrialized nations will have broken through the pre-industrial barrier."

"Poverty is on the rise in South Asia, sub-Saharian Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe. More than 1.3 billion people live below the poverty line, surviving on a dollar a day".

The big paradox of world poverty is that foreign aid increased instead of decreased poverty. Dumping free food to the Third World depresses prices for local farmers and results in less domestic production. The less developed countries become permanently dependent of the rich countries.

Development aid destroys economic incentives. It also strengthens the political power of the ruling class of some countries. It promotes wide scale corruption. Joseph Fletcher (1991) commented on the food aid:

"Food relief in places of chronic famine is self-defeating. It subverts its own purpose naively turning human concern for human beings into a monstrous injury. When Alan Gregg was a vice President of the Rockefeller foundation back in 1955, developing medical and health services all over the world, he explained in the bluntest language that overpopulation is a cancer and said that he had never heard of a cancer being cured by feeding. (…) … we ought not to help the starving if it hurts them by increasing their misery instead of relieving it".

"While foreign aid is a political success, it is an economic and social failure. By increasing government, destroying economic incentives, promoting unprofitable enterprises, and subsidizing misguided policies, foreign aid increases Third World poverty".

At the end of this chapter on a sustainable society, we will tell the sad story of the Easter Island population. It is a good metaphor for the way we are treating this earth. There will be a day that we will cut down the last tree, pump the last barrel of oil. There is no place to anywhere, just like the Easter islanders had no place to go. The ocean surrounded them, whereas we are surrounded by the dark space of the universe.

The Dutchman Jacob Roggeveen landed on Easter-day (April 5) in 1722 on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The island is therefore called Easter Island. He saw an impoverished population and poor vegetation. The island was covered by grass without a single tree or bush over ten feet high. The native animals included nothing larger than insects, not even a bat, bird, snail or lizard. For domestic animals, they had only chickens. The islanders Roggeveen met were totally isolated. Therefore it was completely incomprehensible for him that the ancestors of this population could have constructed huge stone statues weighing up to 82 tons and as great as 33 feet. There were also 700 statues, in all stages of completion, abandoned in quarries and on ancient roads between the quarries and the coast. The strangest thing to Roggeveen was the fact that the population had no wheels, no draft animals and no source of power except their own muscles. How did they transport the giant statues for miles, even before erecting them? It is more astonishing to know that since Roggeveen came to the island, the statues were still standing till 1770, but in 1864, all of them have been pulled down by the islanders themselves. What has happened to this civilization?

Radiocarbon dates suggest than Easter Island was settled sometime before the 4th century AD, probably from elsewhere in Eastern Polynesia, most probably Marquesas. The period of statue construction peaked around 1200 and 1500 AD the population counted at most 20.000. Before the people arrived, the island was covered with large palm trees and woody bushes. They used these trees to build large canoes and the wood for the transportation of the statues. The hauhau tree was used for making ropes, which they used to pull the stones.

Figure 13: Stone statue (2.5 Meter high) on Easter island (Pacific Ocean) (Grote Winkler Prins)

The palm tree was also used as a food source. In garbage heaps dating 900 to 1300 AD, they found bones of fish (one-third form dolphins), land- and seabirds, and rats. Palms and other trees disappeared and were replaced by grasses. In 1400 AD, all palms were chopped down and rats chewed grains, so that the palms could not be regenerated. In addition, the hauhau tree became extinct so they could no longer make ropes from it. The shellfish was overexploited and people must rely on sea snails. Because timber for building seagoing canoes vanished, fish catches declined. The Islanders began to cultivate chickens and then turned to the last remaining meat source available: humans. Bones of humans were found in late Easter Island garbage heaps. There was no longer enough food to feed the chiefs, bureaucrats, and priests. The warrior class took over. Testimonies were stone points of spears and daggers. Around 1700, the population was reduced to probably one-tenth of the original population. They lived in caves for protection against enemies.

Around 1770 rival clans started to topple each other's statues, breaking of their heads. Diamond (1995) compared this collapse with our society:

"By now the meaning of Easter Island for us should be chillingly obvious. Today, again, a rising population confronting with shrinking resources. We can no more escape into space than the Easter Islanders could flee into the ocean. Personal stakes block corrective action, by well-intentional political and business leaders and by their electorates, all of whom are perfectly correct in not noticing big changes from year to year. Instead, each year there are just somewhat more people and somewhat fewer resources on Earth".

In April 1999 I will go to Easter Island (Rapa Nui). I have chosen this Island, because it is an excellent metaphor for the future of our planet. When the inhabitants cut the last tree on this island, the only food that remained was human flesh….

There was no place to go. Will this be our future on earth? We do not have a place to go, when the last unit of non-renewable energy has been used.
By this example of a lost civilization, we recognize great similarities to our global society to day. Catton in 1982 expressed some thoughts on this issue:

"To think about human history, we can see instead that the end of exuberance was the summery result of all our separate and innocent decisions to have a baby, to trade a horse for a tractor, to avoid illness by getting vaccinated, to move from a farm to a city, to live in a heated home, to buy a family automobile and not depend on public transport, to specialize, exchange and thereby prosper".

"Fate is shaping history when what happens to us, intended by no one and was the summary outcome of innumerable small decisions about other matters by innumerable people".

"All species expand as much as resources allow and predators, parasites, and physical conditions permit. When a species is introduced into a new habitat with abundant resources that accumulated before its arrival, the population expands rapidly until the resources are used up".

Price gives a good example of this fact with the experiment of reintroducing reindeer on the St Matthew Island in the Bering Sea. This island had a mat of lichens more than 10 centimeters deep, but no reindeer until 1944, when a herd of 29 was introduced. By 1957, the population had increased to 1350; and by 1966 it was 6.000. However, the lichens were gone and in three years the population crashed. Only 41 females and one apparently dysfunctional male were left over.

Klein estimates that the primeval carrying capacity of the island was about 5 deer per square kilometer. However, during the population peak it was 18 per square kilometer. (Rees, 1996)

We need oil not only for our gasoline tank, but also for exploring oil. Building the machinery to mine oil, mining the oil, building and operating the power plant, building power lines to transmit the energy, decommissioning the plant and so on. Today we are using 6000 products that are wholly or in part made from oil: lubricating oils, greases, waxes, asphalt, nylon stockings, plastics, fertilizers, shoe polish, detergents, medicine like aspirin, photographic film, pesticides and too many more of the key ingredients of modern life to mention here. (Meier et.al., 1998).

It may be that in the next decades we will have an oil crisis. This crisis stands not alone on itself, but is closely related and directly interacting with the other world problems like population growth, urbanization, pollution etc. In reviewing all these publications on this issues it is remarkable how few - especially the media - make the connection between all these problems.

      1.       In the first decades of the next century, the peak of world oil extraction is reached and the still growing world's demands can no longer be supplied.
2.       We are not far from the date that the countries in the Middle East will control nearly 100% of the World's oil exports.
3.       Last year we consumed more then three times as much as we discovered. The discovery ratio has fallen in the least 5 years by 30%. About 80% percent of the oil produced today flows from fields that were discovered before 1973.
4.       The world extraction will start to decline in the first decades of the next century, when half of the oil has been extracted
5.       Since the year 1859, we consumed nearly half of the total Earth's conventional oil: over 800 billion barrels.
6.       In the next 9497 days (until the year 2025) we will consume - with the current rise of 2% annually- about 825 billion barrels of oil. The reserves of conventional oil at this moment are estimated at 850 billion barrels with 150 billion barrels undiscovered.
7.       The non-OPEC countries have only 244 billion barrels. The OPEC countries must fill the gap.
8.       In the year 2025 we may have not have enough energy alternatives for oil
9.       Every day 363.240 world people are born, 148.715 are dying. An increase of 214.525 citizens. Within 9497 days (2025) there will be - with the current rise - 2.037.343.925 citizens more on earth.
10.    The big question is: will there be in the year 2025 enough energy to feed all 8 billion world citizens?

We have assembled the two opposing viewpoints on the availability of oil. The first viewpoint is from people, mainly politicians, economists and oil executives, who are bluntly ignoring the geological facts on the future availability of oil. Politicians want to be reelected in the next 4 years and do not care about the long term. Oil executives do not want to see their stock options diminished and as long as they are in the oil business they will say that the oil industryr will stay forever. There are exceptions like Franco Bernabe (Eni) and Mike Bowlin (Arco).

The second viewpoint is mainly from geologists who really are concerned and convinced there will be an energy crisis in the next century.

The list of persons is alphabetically arranged. References to the articles are found in the literature list. All the articles, except those from Scientific American, were taken from Internet.

By reading these opposing viewpoints one must wonder: are they talking about the same planet earth? It is really worth reading these viewpoints.

When comparing these two viewpoints, I will give my comments on a number of issues concerning the future availability of oil and whether there are enough alternative energy resources.

We, geologists, are now very well informed of the areas on earth were we can expect to find oil. More than 90% of original recoverable oil and gas reserves in the world have been generated from source rocks of six geological time intervals. Large areas on earth are devoid of oil. In the last 20 years, it has become clear that the uneven concentration of oil and gas reserves on any scale is not a result of our incomplete knowledge, but a fundamental fact of the petroleum geology.

Oil companies shun phrases like extraction and depletion. They prefer the word production. "Chevron produces oil" (life insurance rather than death insurance). In 1956 Dr M.King Hubbert described three basic laws according to which an oil field will produce:

3. Once the peak has been passed, production declines until the resources are depleted

The peak is known as the Hubbert Peak. With these rules in hand Hubbert predicted in 1956 that the oil production of the 48 lower states of the US would peak in 1969. Since then the production declined. The point of maximum production coincides with the midpoint of depletion of the resource.

Figure 15: Geologist Marion King Hubbert born in 1903. Predicted correctly that oil from the lower 48 American states would peak around 1969 (Campbell, 1998).

Figure 16: The Hubbert curve for the oil production in the lower 48 states of the United States (Menard, 1981)

Figure 17: Annual oil discoveries in the lower 48 states in the United States. The upper curve: the total oil production, the lower curve: the production from giant fields (more than 1900 millions of barrels) (After Menard, 1981).

Dr Colin J.Campbell and others used the Hubbert curve for the world oil production. They predict that the peak will be during the first decade of the next century. It is of the greatest importance to know the depletion rate thereafter. We have to realize that oil cannot be pumped up quickly as from an underground cavern. The oil is held in minute pore spaces of the reservoir rocks. Wells start to decline, as they have to draw oil farther and farther from the wellbore.

We have to make a great distinction between the quantity of new oil that is in the ground and how much we can extract from it. Laherrère gives some interesting figures concerning the ultimate recoverable oil from a well. Only 10% of all the oil fields oil can be recovered up to 45%. In the biggest fields with more than 500 million barrels the percentage of recovery is 57%. He opposed strongly to C. Allegre who said:" Today we reach a middle mean of 20 to 30 %, but in the future it may be up to 80 to 90%". Laherrère considers this as ridiculous as saying that tomorrow all Frenchmen will measure 2 meters, because certain Frenchmen have attained that height! From the big field of Ghawar (Saudi Arabia), they believed the recovery percentage would come to 60%. Until now it is only 24% and already in the year 2000 the field will decline.

C.W. Masters: "Technology has its role and I don't mean to diminish it- but the world is changed by dreamers". W. Pratt: " Oil is first found in the minds of men"

Campbell and others have divided the world's producing countries in three categories:

1. Post-midpoint countries: production is declining exponentially in these countries (US)

2. Pre-midpoint countries: production will be declining in a couple of years (UK)

3. Swing producers: they can perform for about 15 years until they reach the midpoint. These countries are capable to increase or decrease their production. (Abu Dhabi, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Nigeria and Libya)

Figure 18: Depletion midpoint in years to the past and the future of oil production in areas in the world (After Campbell, 1997)

World oil production is 98.4 % in 41 countries, whereas production in the remaining countries 149 only 1.6%. In the year 1997, world production was 25 billion barrels. Estimates are that in 2005 29 billion will be produced worldwide. From then on we will see a declining production, in 2040 not more than 11 billion barrels!

Figure 19: World hydrocarbons production till the present. Prediction for production for hydrocarbons till 2150 (conventional and non-conventional oil) in relation to the world population (After Laherrère, 1997)

Not a single major oil field has been found with 3D seismic or horizontal drilling. Technology is necessary to fight against diminishing returns of Nature. What is left to discover are the complex small, difficult to reach and uneconomic fields. Technology like new tools, improves development, save money, but accelerates depletion rather than adding significant reserves.

If we apply the Hubbert curve for the discovery rate, we see the Hubbert peak of the World annual oil discoveries peaked in 1962 and dropped since then. We consumed in 1997 26 billion barrels of oil, we were finding less than 6 billion barrels in that year. Therefore, it is unbelievable that oil executives do not accept this fact. Kenneth T. Derr (Chairman of Chevron): "But now it's fairly well known that we're finding more than we're using". Morris Adelman (Professor of economics):"The industry will never run out of oil, not in 10.000 years"

Angola and Algeria are some of the few places on earth were big oil fields were discovered recently. When viewed by decade however, the greatest volumes of oil were discovered in the decade of 1958 to 1967 and gas in the decade 1968 to 1977.

Even with the improvements of technology, the average size of discoveries has decreased. In total we have found 41000 oilfields, 641.000 drills were necessary to find them. 90% of the present oil production comes from fields that are more than 20 year old and 70% from fields that were found 30 years ago. (Petroconsultants, 1998)

Figure 20: World oil discoveries are declining rapidly, whereas production rises.

Every year we have an exponential growth of consumption. This fact is completely ignored by the oil executives of British Petroleum and Chevron: " at the current rate of consumption we have enough oil for 45 years". According to Walter Youngquist (1998): " This is very misleading that the "current rate of consumption" does not represent the future. The rate of consumption of almost all resources, particularly energy is increasing every year".

Percentage of world oil consumption in the rich countries:
US 25%, Japan 8%, China 5%, Russia 4%, Germany 4%, S. Korea 3%, Italy 3% France 3% England 3%

The demand for oil will increase considerable in de developing nations. Since 1985 the consumption increased in Latin America with 30%, in Africa with 40 % and in Asia with 50%. The time is not far away when the demand of oil can not be met, because the production is going to decline.

Figure 21: In the next century. there will be a moment where the demand is more than the supply of oil (After Meier et al, 1998) .

If current trends persist, in about 10 years the developing countries will consume as much energy as the industrialized countries do now.

Figure 22: Exponential growth of energy use in the world from 1890 to 1990 in terawatts ( 1 terawatt is equal five billions barrels of oil per year) (After Holdren, 1990)

A factor that shall not be forgotten, that we consume quite a substantial part of oil by spilling it all over the place. 6600 ships carry 525 billion gallons of oil every year. Between 1973 and 1993 there were over 200.000 oil spills in US water, dumping 230 million gallons of oil. In 1989, the Exxon Valdez tanker dumped 11 million gallons of oil in the waters and onto shores of Alaska. In 1994, a ruptured Russian pipeline spewed 85 million gallons on the Arctic tundra. The Iraqi has burned at the end of the Gulf war 2 billion barrels of oil. The estimates are that a billion gallons of oil are spilled into the world's oceans and waterways each year. Expressed in barrels of oil: 280 million barrels every year or 767.000 barrels per day or 121.953.00 liters. (The oil production of Australia is 800.000 barrels per day). We could drive with a car, which consumes 1 liter for every 10 kilometers, the enormous distance of 1.2 million kilometers, that is 30 x around the world, with the oil will spill every day!

The tankers spill amount only 13 percent of the total oil loss. The biggest percentage accounts for the waste and the lost by municipal, industrial waste, urban, leaking pipelines, storage tanks, standard tanker operations. We do not have figures of the amount of gas that evaporates as we fill the tank of our car and the oil that drips form the cars.

There are also natural spills. Oil is leaking from fissures in the seabed. In the Gulf of Mexico oil spills of 25.000 barrels of oil have been registered. (McDonald, 1998)

" Economists can find twice as much oil on paper as geologist can find in the ground! In 1969, the estimates of the world oil reserves were 3550 billion barrels. The new discoveries after 1969 were far below expectation. Also disappointing were the offshore discoveries".

In the exploration, the reserves are exaggerated to get more investments. Is the well a success the reserves are underrated.Governments in the main producing countries, especially in the OPEC countries own most of world's reserves. In some cases, the estimated reserves do not distinguish between conventional oil and non-conventional oil. The cost to produce oil from these non-conventional reserves is very high with today's standards. It may be therefore misleading to include these reserves with the conventional oil reserves.

The estimates of reserves given by oil producing countries are highly distorted. OPEC countries raised their reserves with unsubstantiated increases. They were motivated by quota considerations. The more oil you say you have, the more you are allowed to sell. Nothing particularly happened in 1988 in terms of technology or recovery.

Political reserves - non-existent oil that is reported by government's agencies for political purposes. OPEC oil production quotas are based upon the oil reserve figures provided by each member country. After this quota system was implemented in 1985 a sudden leap in world oil reserves occurred 'Kuwait reserves jumped 51%, Saudi Arabia shot up 50%, a 100% jump in Iraq, and Venezuela and a 200 % in Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

Figure 23: Sudden rise of reserves in 1988 and 1990. Political reserves?

Mexico included in their reserves the barely producible Chicontepek field. This was done to get a 50 billion-dollar loan from the US, in order to save the collapsing economy. The peso fell in 1994 35%!
In 1988, Venezuela doubled its reserves by including 20 billion barrels of heavy oil.
The Soviet Union exaggerated its reserves, because it did not take into account economic and technical constraints. (Reserves with 5-10 probability of finding oil).
Russian oil expert Khalimov admitted in 1993 that the resources appeared to be strongly exaggerated due to inclusion of reserves and resources that are neither reliable nor technologically and economically viable.
Also very strange is the fact that forty-three countries reported reserves that did not change for one or more years. Production however diminishes the reserves. The reserves should be reduced by the cumulative production of the unchanged period.

Different opinions of oil experts in the reliability of reserves (Laherrère,1996):

DeScorcy (1993): "There are currently almost as many definitions for reserves as there are evaluators, oil and gas companies, securities commissions and government departments. Each one uses its own version of the definition for its own purposes".
Capen (1996): "An industry that prides itself on its use of science, technology and frontier risk assessment, finds itself in the 1990's with a reserves definition more reminiscent of the 1890's".
Cadwell (1996): " Why our reserves definitions don't work anymore".
Tobin (1996): " Virtual reserves - and other measures designed to confuse the investing public".

Estimates are converging because the world petroleum exploration is now mature. We know where oil is and where it is not. Demands are rising and discoveries falling. The estimates of Estimated ultimate recoverable (EUR) oil have varied little over the past half century:

1800 to 2400 billion barrels. 70% in the range of 2000. Campbell and Laherrère (Petroconsultants) estimated the EUR: 2000 and Masters (1997) (USGS): 2300 billion barrels of oil.

Strangely enough, there is not much disagreement in the ultimate reserves on oil. They all accept more or less that we still have 1 trillion barrels of oil left. The difference of opinion is in the time we need to get the oil out of the ground. An oil well can not be depleted at a constant rate. When half of the well is depleted, the extraction begins falling gradually back to zero. Therefore, the time to extract the oil from the well takes more time. This fact is completely overseen by the optimistic viewpoints.

Campbell and Laherrère (1997) combined several techniques to conclude that there are left 1 trillion barrels of conventional oil to produce:

a. Extrapolating published production figures for older oil fields that have begun to decline.
b. The amount of oil discoveries so far in some regions plotted against the cumulative number of
     exploratory wells drilled there; because larger fields are found first, the curve rises rapidly and
     then flattens.
c. An analysis of the distribution of oil-field size in the Gulf of Mexico and other provinces.
     Ranked according to size, then graphed on a logarithmic scale. The fields tend to go all along
     a parabola that grows predictably over time.
d. The estimates were checked by matching the projections for oil in large areas such as the
     world outside the Persian Gulf region, to the rise and fall of oil discovery in those places
     decades earlier.

Even if we take the most optimistic reserves of ultimate recoverable oil as high as 2600 billion barrels, the year of peaking would move back only 11 years to 2019.
The Petroconsultants have a lower figure, because they do not include the political (spurious) reserves of some OPEC countries.

The optimist's claim that the average cost per barrel of finding has dropped considerably. The facts indicate that the amount of oil discovered per foot well drilled has declined exponentially from 1925 to 1988 without interruption.

"Technology always overwhelms depletion": according MIT energy researcher Michael C. Lynch. The new technology, such as horizontal drilling, 3-D seismic and improved secondary recovery methods, has not helped much to stop the dropping of the discovery ratio. The costs associated with horizontal drilling are as much as 40% to 200% (Oberle Oil Corporation, 1998).

The finding of a new giant as the oil field offshore Angola with one billion barrels can not help much. The world oil consumption is today 73 million barrels per day. It means that this giant field can move the peak of world production back just 13.6 days.

The energy costs of locating, extracting and refining fuel and other resources from the environment have increased and will continue to increase despite technical improvements in the extractive sector (Cleveland, 1984). We have declining amount inputs used per unit output in the extractive sector during this century. The extraction of lower quality requires the use of more-energy intensive capita and labor inputs. The energy return on investment for petroleum, natural gas and coal has fallen in the US.

Figure 25: Relation between oil (low and high effort) per foot drilled (After Gever et al. 1991).

OPEC countries are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. They produce only 40% of the world production, but they have 76,5% of world reserves

Non-OPEC producing countries are concentrated in seven countries. Of these, the United States and Russia are the largest producers and Russia and Mexico have the largest reserves. While Russia, Mexico, Norway, the United Kingdom and Canada are net exporters to the world oil market, United States and China must import oil.

World production peaks at 30 billion barrels in 2005 and the falls top 10.9 billion barrels in 2040, a decline of 62% in 35 years. The inexorable dynamics of World oil production will have human consequences in the extreme.

The question is - not whether, but - when will OPEC dominate world petroleum production? This looming event is crucial because it is sure to have social, economic, political, military, and religious consequences. OPEC overtakes Non-OPEC in 2006. Thenceforth OPEC dominates World production.

Figure 26: The OPEC (mainly Muslim) countries dominance in oil production in the beginning of next century (Duncan, 1997)

Richard C. Duncan (Director of the Institute on Energy and Man, Seattle, WA) wrote a letter to President Clinton may 13, 1997 in which he warns him for the dominance of oil producing Muslim countries:

"The percentage of World petroleum exports from Muslim countries will, willy-nilly continue to increase until (perhaps by 2010) the Muslim countries will control nearly 100% of the World petroleum exports. The World 19 Muslim countries will exceed the production of all the 181 non-Muslim countries. What if tomorrow Palestine Yasir Arafat met with representatives from each of the 19 Muslim countries and proposed an entirely new organization called the " Alliance of Muslim Petroleum Exporting Nations - "AMPEC" for short?

This proposal also could cause World stock markets to fall 50% in one day and a World holy war".

Duncan (1999) wrote a highly interesting paper, in which he related the primary energy resources with the growth of world population. His conclusions are well illustrated with a number of graphs:
"The world oilproduction per capita peak (ca.1979), the falling oil production per capita trends (i.e 1979 to 1997), and the Muslim nations'control of world production (or the "military option") will cause widespread and economic dislocations".

Figure 27: Non-OPEC countries are producing far more oil at the moment than the OPEC countries at a bottom price while having far lesser reserves than the OPEC countries (After Global 2000 revisited)

A number of writers are over-optimistic about the production of non-OPEC countries. "Non-OPEC oil production may continue to rise for another decade or even more" (Herman T.Franssen, 1995). The facts are otherwise. Although the Non-OPEC countries produce at the present 60% of the world production, they have less than 25% of the world reserves. If the world would depend only on the non-OPEC countries their reserves would all be gone (with the assumption that the rise of world consumption is 2% annually) in 3670 days (10 years) time! In a couple of years, we will depend fully on the OPEC countries, especially those countries of the Middle East. The great paradox is that the non-OPEC countries produce their costly oil at close capacity, whereas the cheaper oil in the Middle East has an excess production capacity. Production costs in the Middle East are averaged $2/barrel compared with about $4.50/barrel in the US and Western Europe and $5.75/barrel in Canada.

Individual OPEC countries have significantly lower costs (e.g. less than one dollar/barrel in Venezuela). The basic economics of mineral extraction and production for the world market should result in the utilization of the lower cost resources first. Today three-quarters of total world- wide oil and gas investment is being spent in OECD countries. They have only 6% of the proven reserves, but are now producing up to 25%. Their reserves will be quickly depleted and the Middle East countries with 63 % of the world reserves will be in a strong position in the time to come.

If restriction on the oil trade of some Middle Eastern countries is not lifted in the near future, the Non-OPEC will need by 2005 an additional 10 million barrels per day. The price will also go up to maybe 40$ per barrel.

In this context, it is interesting to know that some of the OPEC countries are trying to create a more effective group of oil. The July 6, 1998 issue of EIG's Petroleum Intelligence Weekly reports that, in theory, the new organization should augment not supplant OPEC. The aim of the new group is to keep the oil prices in a range of $17-$22 a barrel. It will try to intervene swiftly without warning whenever prices will move outside this range. The club has no fixed home-base or secretariat. The members can map out their strategy by telephone and meet informally as they did already in Riyadh and Amsterdam. Eventually the club will try to gather 10 oil-exporting countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Mexico, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Iraq, Norway, Qatar, and Nigeria). These 10 countries have a potential output of 40% of world oil output, 70% of global reserves and a spare capacity of 3 million barrels per day! (Barton, 1998).

The prospects from the Economist Intelligence are forecasting a further decline of the oil price to under $10 dollar for 1999. What will the response of this new group be, to this new challenge of still lower oil prices? Are they afraid to lose a share in world oil market?

The President-Director of Royal Shell/Group Mark Moody- Stuart (Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, Tuesday 27 October 1998, p.17) answered this question recently. He predicts a drastic change in global oil production because we should reckon to deal for a long time with extreme low oil prices. He thinks that the solidarity between the big OPEC countries in The Gulf region will disappear. They can produce against extreme low costs, whereas the other OPEC countries with lower volumes and have much higher costs. He mentions Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait as candidates for a bigger share of the market. The big oil companies have taken draconian measures to face the low oil price (under 10$ per barrel).

The fusion of Shell and Texaco in refining and sales and the take-over of Amoco by British Petroleum. An alliance of the Russian Gazprom and the Nigerian energy company. The French oil company Total bought the Belgian oil company Petrofina. In December 1998 was the biggest deal in oil history: the fusion of Exxon and Mobil. What will be next, Shell with Chevron?

Riyadh, 28 October: The crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah, blamed other OPEC countries for the low oil prices. They should keep their promises to lower their oil production. In fact, Venezuela promised in the beginning of this year to cut 200.000 barrels per day, but instead produced 780.000 barrel per day more than their quota of 2.580.000 barrels per day.

The OPEC countries discussed the problem of the low oil price. They decided end November 1998 not to take steps to reduce their oil production. OPEC will however lower oil production in March next year. They suspect that Iran and Venezuela have exported 600.000 barrels per day more than their quota permits.

The OPEC members agreed 23 March 1999 to cut crude oil production by 2.104 million barrels a day and to maintain the lower levels of output for a full year beginning April 1.

The group of 11 oil-producing nations detailed the plan in a communiqué released after a meeting of OPEC members. It includes reductions by non-OPEC producers as well as those in the group in an effort to end a global oil glut and strengthen prices that had languished at a 12-year low as recently as December. If the participating nations fully comply with the agreement, the supply of oil on world markets would be reduced by about 2.6 percent. The agreement was unanimous.

Saudi Arabia, OPEC's largest producer, will slash output by 585,000 barrels of crude a day. OPEC's No. 2 producer Iran will curtail daily output by 264,000 barrels, while Venezuela will pump 125,000 fewer barrels of oil a day.

OPEC will evaluate its output levels at the group's next meeting in September and reserves the right to adjust production levels before the full 12-month period ends. (Associated Press)

As a result of this cut in production we have seen that the price of oil went up form 10 to 14 dollar per barrel. It is quite possible that the price will rise soon to 17-18 dollars or more per barrel.

Two big countries will need big oil imports in the next century: China and the Unites States.

China became a net importer in 1993. They produce 3 million barrels crude oil per day but they consume more. The off balance in 2000 will be over 2 million barrels a day. In the year 2000 China will import 45 % of its oil need. Thirsty for oil and gas, China spends billions to set up a supply network abroad (Hajari, 1997).

In the next century, we will see a tough fight between these two superpowers China and the US to secure their oil imports.

China has a spectacular economic growth of 7-8% in1998. It will have a growing thirst for oil. This will have a great impact on de the geopolitics in the Asia-Pacific region. It will become the third biggest oil importer after US and Japan. It will trade arms for oil with the Middle East. It could use arms to secure oil supplies from South East Asia. They have reserves of 24 billion barrels. Maybe they have 44 billion of potential reserves. Especially the Tarim basin has huge potential reserves. In the South China Sea China have large offshore potential reserves.

It has a GNP of 25-45 billion dollar. In 2005, it will overtake Japan. The oil wealth of beneath the South China Sea is fueling an explosive arms race in South East Asia. China claims the sovereignty of the Spratly islands in the middle of the South East China Sea. Taiwan, Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia and Philippines also claim these islands. It has a great strategic value: the shipping routes lie near; it contains huge reserves of oil and gas.

The US will in the future compete with China for every barrel of oil. Maybe Persian oil exporters prefer Chinese rockets to US dollars?
Unites States growing dependence of oil and energy policy:
In the period 1985 - 1995, we see that the oil production in the US declines, whereas imports and consumption are rising.

These data are given in millions of barrels per day:
Production       10.58 to    8.11
Consumption   15.15 to   18.16
Imports              4.59 to   10.05

It depends on the political situation in the Middle East. In addition, another factor will be of great importance, that is the foreign policy of the US. If the US embargo has imposed on Iraq, Iran and Libya remains, the oil price will go up. This implies an extra cost of trillions of dollars, because the Non-OPEC oil is far more expensive to produce.

The interests of the oil exporters and importers are diametrically opposed as far as the price of oil is concerned. The low price is good for the western world, but bad for the exporting countries. They do not have enough capital for maintaining and expanding their oil production. As contrasted with former times, when the Gulf Countries had high profits, nowadays they have external debts. Their debts increased from 6.2 billion dollars in 1980 to 168 billion dollars in 1994! They need an extra 180 billion dollars in the next ten years for capacity expansion. In the whole world, there will be a need between 800 and 1400 billion dollars for investment in the oil industry. (Bakshi, 1996)

The price is so low because we found all this oil already 25 year before the first oil shock. When the price of oil will go up, we will see that we must burn more energy to make more goods and services to buy more energy. This feedback loop will end in disaster.

Weinberger: "One of the reasons we were selling all those arms to the Saudi's was for a lower oil price."

The current GATT agreements promote poorer countries to sell their resources at very low prices. This leads to an accelerating destruction of their resources. Decisions concerning the global energy economy would be very different if they were based on the costs and the benefits to the seventh generation on a different system of national accounts. The future costs of present resource consumption, waste, production and pollution would then not be ignored. (Global 2000 revisited)

G7 countries have 70% more income from oil by taxes than the 11 OPEC countries. Tax revenues are spent on other things than investment in the oil industry. OPEC needs in 20 years 100 billion dollars for investment.

The alarming decline of stable oil prices is a major assurance of the global market health. However, when those prices soar or plunge big trouble soon follows. Greenspan warned for a deflation, which can lead to severe recession or even depression.

At the end of this chapter, we will point to the fact that the future oil shock is of a complete different nature than all the shocks we have seen. They all had an economical and/or political character. There has never been a moment when the supply of oil could on the long term not fulfil the demand. Although there were, shortages like in 1973, but not in a geological sense. The oil supply shocks of 1973-74 and 1979-80 were followed by considerable turmoil in various markets. Worldwide recessions and the earlier shock followed both shocks by a several-year period of inflation as well. The shock of 1986 was different in nature.

Disagreements between OPEC members hastened a collapse of the oil prices. The shock of the Gulf war in 1991 caused certain unrest on the oil markets. However Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers increased their production and destabilized the oil market within six months. This price shock was also, as in the shocks in the seventies, followed by a recession. (Jones and Leiby, 1996) (Taylor, 1993)

There will be a moment in the next century when the demand of oil could not be fulfilled. The curve of production and demand will cross over and forever. Natural gas and coal may for the time being fill the gap, but they also are finite resources! As we will see in a later chapter it looks as if we don't have enough alternative energy resources to fill all the tanks of the billion cars on earth or to produce enough food for the still growing world population.

When the last tree is cut
When the last river is poisoned
When the last fish is caught
Then you will see that you can't eat money
(Wisdom of the Cree Indians)

In our economic models, we lack the representation of the natural resources. Already as 1971 Earl Cook realized that enormous consumption of energy is primarily at the expense of "capital" rather than of "income"; that is at the expense of solar energy stored in coal, oil and natural gas rather than of solar radiation, water, wind and muscle power. The subtitle of his article was "The US with 6 percent of world's population, uses 35 %percent world's energy". In the end, the limiting factor of high levels of energy consumption will be the disposal of waste heat. A better definition of the second law of thermodynamics could not be given!

In our economy these natural resources remain unpriced and therefore not subject to market signals. Our economic models of production do not include the natural resources, they only consider production as a function of labor and capital.

Economists are thinking in money. It is their ultimate resource. They forget to take in account the value of the natural resources. They count as costs only labor and investment to extract them. There is no thought given to the cost of replacement or maintenance of the resources they use.

" The first is that the "prices" of widespread child abuse, or of losing Amazon forests, for example, are not available; there are no markets in which they may be "valued". Economists then have to invent a" shadow price" to consider them. But these showed prices are only estimates of transactions associated with the events- for example, hospital and/ or psychiatric counseling costs (in dollars) of treatment of a physically of psychologically abused child. They in no sense evaluate the misery and hurt experienced by the child. Nor do the shadow prices evaluate the long-term loss of social income or ecosystem services from the absent forest, let alone the cost of restoring something whose loss may be intolerable and /or irreversible".

The models the economists built on assets with no economic value to natural resources. Failing to recognize the asset value of natural resources will lead to wrong choices in the policy of a country. An article of Robert Repetto (1992) is in this context very illustrative:

"A country can cut down its forests, erode its soils, pollute its aquifers and hunt its wildlife and fisheries to extinction, but its measured income is not affected as these assets disappear. Impoverishment is taken for progress".

Economists not only forget to take into account the value of natural resources, they also ignore the hidden costs to the environment. The cost of energy is frequently subsidized, by government through investment tax credits, federally subsidized research and military expenditures that ensure access to petroleum. The environmental costs of fossil - fuel burning also do not factor into the price of gasoline. Therefore, the real costs are ignored. They should internalize the real costs in the prize of their product. The economists call it free trade. Daly (1993): "Free trade could be accused of reverse environmental imperialism". He gives an example of the so-called free trade:

"It is likely that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will ruin Mexican peasants when "inexpensive" US corn (subsidized by depleting topsoil, aquifers, oil wells and the federal treasure) can be freely imported. Displaced peasants will bid down wages. Their land will be bought cheaply by agribusiness to produce fancy vegetables and cut flowers for the US market. Ironically, Mexico helps to keep US corn "inexpensive" by exporting its own vanishing reserves of oil and genetic crop variants, which the US needs to sustain its corn monoculture".

When there is no trade between countries, each country is limited to produce goods by its own capital and resources.

The assumption of Ricardo (1817) was that free trade worked well, when products can cross the borders, but not the capital.

"It would be much wiser to acknowledge the errors which a mistaken policy has induced us to adopt, and immediately to commence a gradual recurrence to the sound principles of an universally free trade".

The capital of a Country can now be invested in making one product. The absolute cost differences between the countries do not matter (comparative advantage).

When the capital can cross the borders, one country may end up producing all the goods if it has lower absolute costs (absolute advantage).

Daly (1993) has further some quite interesting remarks on the free trade theory developed by the early 19th-century British economist David Ricardo. He observes those countries with different technologies, customs and resources will incur different costs when they make the same products. They have a comparative advantage to trade freely to obtain others products. Ricardo's assumption was however, that factors of production (especially capital) were immobile. This is completely different with the situation of today. Capital is transferred from one country to another with the speed of light. This fact invalidates the assumption that free trade will benefit all its partners. If capital is mobile, capital can follow absolute advantage rather than comparative advantage. One country may end up producing everything if it has lower absolute costs.

Dr M. King Hubbert in 1970 noted the fundamental difference between the properties of money and those of matter and energy. Money is an abstraction and follows other rules than those in which material and energy systems must operate. Money, whatever its quantity, has no intrinsic worth. A sum of money is nothing more than the expression of an abstract relation between supply and demand. Money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. The amount the matter-energy system can grow is limited. The crisis of 1929-1930 was completely different from the future crisis. The crisis was due to monetary reasons. At that moment, we had enough manpower and abundant raw materials. Hubbert had 40 years ago a remarkable sharp view on the future.

He was not a pessimist, as you would gather from these words. He believed in a non-catastrophic solution. We should abandon two axioms of our culture:

" ….the work ethic and the idea that growth is the normal state of affairs. Solar energy is the solution for the future energy. I'm convinced we have the technology to handle right now. We could make the transition in a matter of decades if we begin now".

Unfortunately, not much has been done in these decades. Solar power is not capable to substitute oil in the coming decades. L. Hickerson commented in 1995 on Hubbert's proposal to abolish the money system. An interest rate of zero (as Hubbert explains) means the end of the money system. We are being forced to completely rethink our cultural ideas about how to organize our economy and distribute purchasing power. Those who think we can continue to have business as usual will use increasingly desperate means. The proposals of Negative Population Growth should be implemented immediately.

We are afraid that none of these proposals will be effectuated in the near present. Jay Hanson (1998b) has some good comparisons on the non-linear relationship between the prices and natural resources.

" The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. The float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand. So it is with the market. As the demand for oil increases the increase in price signals oil companies to pump more oil out of the ground, which lower prices again. The oil market has no information about the amount of oil in the ground until production is unable to keep up with demand. The worldwide fall of the stock markets to-day can be explained by the fact that the quality of the natural resources is declining. We need more and more investments for mining our natural resources. The minerals of good quality are gone".

There are a number of people telling you that we have many alternative energy resources if the oil reserves are depleted. This may be true, if we start now to develop these resources. There are however no real signs that the industry or the governments are taking drastic actions to develop alternative energy resources at a big scale. Too expensive they say, especially with a low oil price.

Christopher Flavin (Vice-President for research of the Worldwatch Institute) however is very optimistic about our energy future:

"Using technologies such as fuel cells and mass-produce solar generators, it should be possible in the long run to replace virtually all fossil fuels with hydrogen-based energy system, something that {French} author Jules Verne dreamed of more than a century ago. The hydrogen would be produced using sunlight harnessed on rooftops as well as in remote dessert collectors, and would be conveyed to homes and industries via pipeline. Although this vision may sound futuristic most of the inventions needed to make it real have already been made".

Since 1950 the world population has doubled 1950 doubled from 3 to 6 billion, the number of cars has increased ten times from 50 to 500 million! More than half of world's oil is consumed by these road vehicles.

With the annual growth rate we will have in 2025 nearly 1 billion road vehicles! World traffic volume measured in passenger-kilometers will continue to rise. The effect on the environment will be disastrous. A tank of gasoline produces up to 400 pounds of carbon dioxide. Bleviss and Walzer wrote in 1990 that the OECD countries must rethink transportation systems and should concentrate on light vehicles.

Motor vehicles make up 53 % of US oil consumption, Jet aviation 8% and the Industry 26%.

Figure 29: World traffic volume will grow exponentially. Measures in passenger-kilometres. (After Schafer and Victor, 1997).

An oil industry executive (Pitts) says:
"You can't tell a person in India who has just saved enough money to buy a car, to go back to riding bicycle".

James Howard Kunstler has a chapter on the car craziness of the Americans in his book Home from Nowhere.
"We have the knowledge to do the right timing; we lack only the will to do the right thing".

Jim Minter (1996) commented on this book:
" We Americans are not going to abandon our cars. We won't abandon them even when they cause global warming and melt the polar caps putting New York and Florida under water. A personal automobile is the right of every American. It says so in the Constitution.
Ah, would Kunstler's prophecy of a gradual taming of the automobile be possible. Nothing so gentle as that seems likely to me. The Auto Age is going to hit a rapid deceleration. However, it will not be graceful, gradual or planned".

Large amounts of carbon dioxide presently are blown into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

Bolin 1971, p.123:
"The earth atmosphere is so thoroughly mixed and so rapidly recycled through the biosphere that the next breath you inhale will contain atoms exhaled by Jesus at Gethsemane and Hitler at Munich. It will contain strontium 90 and iodine 130 from atomic explosions and gases from chimneys and exhaust pipes of the world
The greatest disturbances of which we are aware are those now being introduced by man himself. Since his tampering with the biological and geochemical balances may ultimately prove injurious - even fatal- to himself, he must understand them much better than he does today. The story of the circulation of carbon in nature teaches us that we cannot control global balances. Therefore, we had better leave them close to be to the natural state that existed until the Industrial Revolution. Out of a simple realization may come a new industrial revolution".

Carbon dioxide is transported to the deep ocean by downward currents for centuries. When the ocean is not anymore capable to absorb great quantities of carbon dioxide the downward currents will stop. It will be the sink for the 6 billion tons of carbon that is thrown in earth atmosphere.

Increased temperatures have slowed growth of tropical trees over the past decade.
Trees take up carbon dioxide, but also release carbon dioxide by respiration. When growing fast the balance is positive, but when it slows down the balance will be negative. Higher night temperatures force trees of the tropical forests to transpire more. (Beardsley, 1998).

Figure 30: Global temperature of the atmosphere since 1850 has risen half a degree Celsius, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Computer models predict a rising of 1.5 - 2.5 degrees Celsius in 2025 ( After Jones, 1990).

Methane is the most rapidly increasing greenhouse gas. Estimates of atmospheric methane from a thousand years ago suggest values around 700 part per billion (ppb), which were constant until about the late 1700s. Since that time, concentrations have more than doubled. Cores of Antarctic ice going back 160.000 years shows that methane have fluctuated between 300 ppb and 700 ppb until the industrial revolution when it begun to climb near 1700 ppb (Takle, 1996)

An average American drives his car 12.000 miles a year. He consumes his weight in oil every seven days.

Cars account for half the oil consumed in the US, about half the urban pollution and one fourth of the greenhouse gases. New technology has made it possible to put electrical cars within reach but politics may slow the transition from internal combustion engines. (Sperling, 1996)

Even when a "miracle " car will be on the road tomorrow, it takes 10-20 years to replace the global fleet of 500 million vehicles. (Swenson, 1997)

The uneven distribution of the world's fossil fuels necessitates a flourishing worldwide trade in energy.

Some people believe that the upgrading of our two-lane highways to giant multi-lane freeways can reduce air pollution. The presence of these giant freeways generates enormous new volumes of traffic. These freeways will also be congested. Also, there is the thought that it would be good to build bigger and heavier trucks, it will be more efficient and reduce costs. However, this will damage the freeways. The repairs will be paid by the taxpayer and not by the truckowners!

In 1981, there were hopes that in 1995 the US will have light vehicles that will drive 6o miles per gallon! Gray and von Hippel (1981):
"it would be possible with currently available technology to raise the average fuel economy of the entire US automobile fleet to more than 60 miles per gallon".

In 1989, there was hope for the use of methanol (wood alcohol) or ethanol (grain alcohol) as fuel to reduce pollution. Unfortunately, most car buyers do not base their purchase on the need for reducing fossil-fuel consumption and the need to reduce air pollution. They look mainly for cost, safety and performance.

The US has in 1995 exhausted 194.4 billion barrels, that is 75% of her initial reserves. A nation with only 268 million people has produced 10% of the world oil reserves.

The US gasoline is very cheap in comparison with Europe. The US should raise the tax on gasoline consumption but there are two groups of voters that would resist strongly; those who buy and those who sell it.

Transport costs are energy intensive. Governments subsidize cost of energy through tax investment credits. Federal subsidies for research and military expenditure ensure access to petroleum. The environmental costs of fossil fuel burning are also not a factor into the price of gasoline. The average American owned and consumed twice as much in 1990 then in 1948.

In Science Journal of October 1967 Bouladon predicted from a literature survey that by the end of the century:
" Belt transporters for short distance, 800 km/h tubes for medium distances and Mach 10 aircraft for long distances. Also that their should be a government legislation forcing transport systems into harmony with their environment".

Plants are mostly made up of carbon dioxide and water. Sunlight extracts carbon from carbon dioxide and combines it with oxygen and hydrogen from water to sugars. If you burn, the plant's sunlight energy is released in the form of light and heat. The small pile of ash is all the minerals the big tree has taken from the soil. Everything else was gas from the air: carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Sunlight falling on 100 acres of wildlands is producing enough food for 10 people.

40 000 years ago we started to domesticate animals. They gave us food and work animals. Cultivating crops will give us with the same 100 acres food for 100 people.

10 000 years ago, we started with agriculture. From that moment mankind will dominate nature.

We discovered a new source of sunlight. We found coal that was replacing forests as a source of heat and thus freeing land for agriculture. It could be used to increase our production of food. Then came the ultimate energy source: OIL. Not only could we use it as fuel, but it can also be converted into synthetic fabrics. We needed less sheep grazing and cotton land, thus allowing us to convert even more non-food croplands to food production. Oil was used for agriculture: running tractors, fertilizers, and pesticides. All this caused a food explosion. All conditions were optimal for an explosion in human flesh.

We consumed ancient sunlight to create more flesh that is human. Without this ancient sunlight, the Earth can sustain a quarter of a billion or one billion people. (Hartmann, 1997)

Agriculture has been changed dramatically by technological development. On the positive side: more stable and abundant availability. On the negative side: degradation of arable land, more dependency on fossil energy and a lower efficiency.

Humans change energy from this environment in order to live. There are two kinds of energy changes. Muscle power (endosomatic) and from the outside (exosomatic). We have two forms of energy at our disposal: energy from the sun and from the ancient sunlight (oil) (Giampietro and Pimentel, 1994).

Energy of the sun (photosynthesis) took care of 100 % of pre- industrial societies. This has changed drastically. We use at this moment more than 90% of exosomatic energy.

1 gallon (4.5 liter) of gasoline gives the same amount of energy as 3 weeks of human physical power. We need 10 kilocalories of exosomatic energy to produce one kilocalorie of food.

The ratio between exosomatic and endosomatic is in the developing countries 4 to 1 whereas in the developed countries 40 to 1 and in the US 90 to 1! The total exosomatic energy we use is worth the labor of 280 million humans.

Currently there is a serious worldwide degradation of land, water, and biological resources by the increasing use of fossil energy by the world's population. The intensive use of fossil-based fertilizers is just to help meet food need in the developing countries. (What will happen to the food production when the fossil fuels are gone?). More than 75% of the world land surface is not arable. Of the remaining 25% only 5% highly productive, 6% moderately and 13 % has a low capacity. Owing to deforestation, desertification and soil erosion, the land available for food production is decreasing at an alarming rate. We are losing topsoil 18 times faster than replacement (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1991).

The amount of land under cultivation started to decline during the 1980s. This drop is largely because spreading urban centers have engulfed land, or, once the land is depleted, farmers have abandoned it. Some farmers have also fled from irrigated land that has become unproductive because of salt accumulations (Bongaarts, 1994).

· 6 million ha of dry lands are added to the 1.3 billion dry land (moderately or severely desertified)

· 12- 21 million ha of tropical forest are lost (12% of the tropical forest will be lost in 2000)

Figure 31: Areas of tropical forests lost by deforestation (black). Forest still present indicated with dots

In the year 2025, may be a quarter of all the species in the world will be lost. 25 % mammal species are threatened.

The cause of the dwindling amphibian populations is global depletion of the ozone layer. Eggs are laid in the open and effected by UV light. By burning forests, they can not hide their eggs anymore. Also man eats a great amount of frogs: in France 3000 -4000 metric ton. For each ton, you lose 20.000 frogs! Amphibians are good indicators for the health of the ecosystems. (Blaustein and Wake, 1995)

There are 4327 mammal species of which 1.096 are at risk to become extinct. Richard Rice (1997) and others were very skeptical about the future of the tropical forests. The management for sustainable timber production is unlikely to become a widespread phenomenon, at least in the near future. On the contrary; economic interest's incentives, limited government controls and a lack of local political support will consistently thwart the best efforts in that direction, particularly in developing countries.

The enormous growth of world population would not have been possible without a widespread activity of the synthesis of ammonia. The availability of nitrogen-rich fertilizer has giving an enormous impetus to food production.

Nitrogen is not easily available. We can not synthesize it from the air. 78 percent of the atmosphere has paired nitrogen atoms that are too stable to transform in into a reactive form that plants can take up. Only through the action of bacteria, plants are able to fix nitrogen. No higher organisms have developed this capability. By the withdrawal caused by the growth, nitrogen is taken out from the ground and therefore there is a constant shortage of supply. Then came the breakthrough by the production of ammonia. Now 175 million tons of nitrogen flow into world's croplands every year and becomes incorporated into cultivated plants. Synthetic fertilizer takes up as much as 40 %. The use of nitrogen fertilizer helped substantially to increase the population density from 5 to 15 people per hectare. There are also deleterious consequences of the massive introduction of nitrogen into soil and waters. Because of the nitrogen the algae can grow unrestrictedly and is robbed oxygen from the environment. Therefore fish and crustacean species will die. It also threatens the Great Barrier Reef with algal overgrowth. It does not only disturb soil and water but also the air. Reactions of nitrous oxide with excited oxygen contributed to the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere. Also in the lower troposphere it promotes global greenhouse warming. The atmospheric lifetime is longer than a century. (Smil, 1997)

The amount of nitrogen available per square kilometer of land from fertilizer application, livestock and human waste is 199 times greater in Europe than in much of Africa.

Figure 32: Relation population growth and the use of nitrogen fertilizer. (After Smil, 1997)

The predictions are that the release of nutritive nitrogen from fertilizer and fossil-fuel combustion

will double in the next 25 years, most of the increase, due to the larger growth of the population, occurring in the developing world.

Global food production has continued to increase at an average annual rate of about 2.5%. There are indications that these growth rates worldwide are going to decline. More of the poorer and more fragile soils situated in unfavorable climates will be used, despite their limited potential. More than 75% of the world land surface is not arable. Less than 25% is suitable for crop production. Of this land area: 13% has a low productive capacity, 6% is moderately productive and only 3% is highly productive.

In primitive societies it needs 5 hours of work to get enough food to eat, this is 16 times more than in western rich countries. In earlier times, 75 % of the working class cultivated the land, at the present only 10%. In total, we cultivate 1.4 million ha. This amount of increase is slowing due to high costs. In 1960, the increase percentage was 4.4, in 1989 only 2%. Urbanization, soil erosion, and desertification cause the loss of arable land.

Figure 33: Available cropland will decline in many parts of the world as a result of population growth and the degradation of fertile land (Homer-Dixon et al, 1993)

200 million hectares (494.2 million acres) of cropland are necessary to feed the burgeoning population of the tropics and subtropics. Only 93 million hectares are available.

There are however possibilities to grow crop with seawater. 130 million hectares of cropland maybe possible. There are two difficulties to be met, that salt does not damage the environment and pumping seawater costs oil and is expensive. The plans were already made in the seventies. At that time they expected that within 10 years, agriculture with seawater should be possible on a large scale. Twenty years later, it is still in the protostage of commercial development. (Glenn, 1998)

It is good to realize that whereas food production increase with 34% in the period 1951-1966, the use of tractors increased with 63%, the use of fertilizers with 146% and the use of pesticides with 300%.

The threat to food and environmental security created by population growth is clear today. Most of 183 countries in the world are now dependent in some degree on food imports.

60 million tons is sustainable but we are catching 80-84 million with a capacity of 100 million tons. 20 countries have not ratified a treaty protecting fish. What is the reason of this overfishing in the last decades? It is due to new technologies such as: radar which allows vessels to fish in dense fog, longdrift nets entangling countless creatures besides their intended catch, satellite positioning enabling ships to maneuver precisely to spots where fish are known to congregate and breed. Pair trawls collects fish very effectively. Sonar can detect schools of fish. As a result of these new methods we see that in most areas around the globe takes of fish have fallen considerably; Pacific ocean between 2 an 31%, Atlantic ocean from 11 to 53%. In the Indian ocean on the contrary catches are rising 5-6%. Modern methods are just starting to be used.

The fish industry is heavily subsidized. To catch $70 billion worth of fish, it costs the fishing industry $124 billion annually. Subsidies fill much of the $54 billion in deficits (Fuel-tax exemptions, price controls, low interest loans, outright grants for gear and infrastructure). The fishing fleet has doubled in the period between 1970 and 1990. At the rate of the fish consumption with the high rate of population growth, we need an additional 19 million metric tons of seafood every year. The next century will witness an unthinkable exhaustion of the oceans of seafood. (Safina, 1998)

As regarding the booming shrimp aquaculture, this shrimp farming has created a set of environmental problems. For every young shrimp caught in the wild, 100 other marine animals will be killed. In some countries, shrimp aquaculture is carried out in ponds and tanks on land. This has caused as much as 20 % of damage to mangroves. Shrimp aquaculturists are blind to the cost of replacement or maintenance for the resources they used. They depend on access to public resources that traditionally have been use by many different groups. Shrimp farmers must decide if they indeed want to address the environmental problems their industry has created. Shrimp aquaculture as it is conducted today in most parts of the world is not sustainable for many decades into the future. (Boyd and Clay, 1998)

Figure 34: Outbreak of poisoning algae in coastal waters. Since 1970 more than doubled in 1990. (After Anderson, 1994)

Then there is the great problem of the so-called "Red Tides". Blooms of toxic algae posing a great threat to humans and marine life occur when clams mussels, oysters, scallops ingest the toxic algae as food. These algae have normally an asexual way of reproduction. With scarcity of food they switch to sexual reproduction, settle on the sea floor, and wait for better times. A single clam can accumulate enough poison to kill a human. When fishes swim through these blooms the algae releases a neurotoxin onto the gills of the fish. Whales have died by eating mackerel with high doses of neurotoxin. Outbreaks of paralytic shellfish poisoning have increased enormously since 1970. Maybe due to coastal water pollution and by hitchhiking of these algae on ships.

Only 2.5 percent of the water on Earth is fresh water. Of this, less than one percent is suitable for human use. 70 % is used for agriculture. Shortage is defined, when there is less than 1700 cubic meters fresh water available per person.

A report of January 1997 from Stockholm indicated that by the year 2025 two thirds of the world's people will suffer from water shortage. The rate of growth of the use of fresh water is twice the rate of growth of world population.

Figure 35: Available water per person per year will shrink in the next 26 year dramatically for some countries (After Homer-Dixon et al., 1993).

Urbanization effects the quality and quantity of fresh water. Urban infrastructure as highways and parking lots replace permeable soil and vegetation. The rainwater is channeled into sewers and drain systems instead of filtering into the ground to raise the watertable. Industry consumes 42 percent of the world fresh water. In China, the problems of water shortage pose a rising threat to world food security. China depends on irrigated land to produce 70% of the grain for its huge population of 1.2 billion people. There are 50.000 kilometers of major rivers in China. 80 % of them are so polluted that so much polluted that they no longer support fish and are less suitable for irrigating farmlands. In the Shanxi province, rice has been found to contain excessive levels of chromium and lead and the cabbage are permeated with cadmium. Along the lengths of the Yellow River abnormally high rates of mental retardation, stunting and development diseases are linked to elevated concentrations of arsenic and lead in the water and food (Brown and Halweil, 1998).

Mercury poisoning is a global problem: mercury warnings to fishermen have been issued for fresh waters in over 40 of the United States, thousands lakes of in Canada, all of Scandinavia and much of Europe and Asia. An elemental poison can not be gotten rid of by simply running it around the food chain. If fish die without being eaten, bacterial decomposition puts the mercury back into the cycle again. (Hanson, 1998a)

In Brazil, 130 tons of mercury are washed up to the banks of the Tapajos River every year from the gold mining industry. In 1994, many people living along the river Tapajos suffered reduced manual dexterity and impaired vision due to mercury poisoning. (National Wildlife Federation, 1997)

Another environmental problem is an excess of nutrients flowing from the land into the sea. These nutrients, mainly nitrogen, are coming from fertilizers, automobiles, power plants and sewer systems.

Because of the population growth, more fertilizers, more livestock, more waste will be produced to feed the mouths of the billions of people in the next century. The ocean waters around the world will become greener, browner and redder and there will be more frequent periods when the bottom of the seas in vulnerable locations become lifeless. (Nixon, 1998)

Many times in world's history countries have been going to war to secure supplies of natural resources. To cite only a few examples: The Trojan wars of 1194 BC were started because the Greeks were denied access to the minerals of the Black Sea. Japan's invasion of Manchuria, and attack on Pearl Harbor was mainly caused by the US embargo on oil. During World War II, Germany invaded Russia to acquire the oil fields of the Caucasus. The Gulf war in 1991: Kuwait has one of the largest proved reserves of oil and is one of the world's largest producers.

The article by Robert D. Kaplan (1994) gives us a picture of what will happen to our world society until the year 2025:

" Future wars will be those of communal survival, aggravated or, in many cases, caused by environmental scarcity. These wars will be subnational, meaning that it will be hard for states and local governments to protect their own citizens physically. This is how many states will ultimately die. To the average person, political values will mean less, personal security more.

War and peace are functions of geology .The reason to go to war to provide national and economic security through the access to mineral resources is camouflaged by misleading reasons such as holy wars, wars of liberation and patriotic wars to stop evil. The soldier is willing to go for these reasons to offer his life".

"It is very hard to get people die for geology", said Anthony Reso, former professor in geology.

There are 192 nations of various sizes in the world and no nation possesses all the natural resources it needs to maintain national security. In the modern world any disruption of vital reserves is dangerous to the economy of a nation.

In 1993, Thomas F.Homer-Dixon and co-authors wrote a leading article in the Scientific American under the scaring title: Environmental change and violent conflict.

"Growing of renewable scarcities can contribute to social instability and civil strife. The total area of highly productive land will drop as will the extent of forests and the number of species they sustain. Future generations will also experience the ongoing depletion and degradation of aquifers, rivers and other bodies of water, the decline of fisheries, further stratospheric ozone loss and, perhaps significant change of climate. As such environmental problems become more severe, they may precipitate civil of international strife".

Future water wars maybe between countries along the Nile: Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. Future possibility of warfare in the Middle East: Islamic fundamentalism, anti-colonialism, the Shia-Sunni cleavage between the Arabi- Iranian civilizations, the instability of the future Saud house for other sheikdoms, tension between Afghanistan and Iran etc.

Since 1945 15 million people were killed in ethnic conflicts. In addition, many religious conflicts are fought in the world (India, Yugoslavia). Since the mid 80's the number of children died in armed conflicts is 2 million, 5 million wounded or crippled. The number of people that have fled to escape conflicts are now 47 million. In 1985 there were 22 million displaced people, in 1995 the number jumped to 133 million. 250.000 children under the age of 18 have fought in 33 armed conflicts.

(The weapon industry is now producing smaller and lighter rifles, kalashnikovs etc. because more children are participating in armed conflicts).

In his article written in 1994, Kaplan has had a far-sighted view on the actual situation (1989) in Kosovo:

"When the Berlin Wall was falling, in November 1989, I happened to be in Kosovo, covering a riot between Serbs and Albanians. The future was in Kosovo, I told myself that night, not in Berlin."

How true were these words. In this context we will quote some from an article The new Mafia order written on 8 January of this year, before the outbreak of war on Kosovo :

"Pristina, the capital of Serbia's Kosovo Province, as a film noir set made real. Its most conspicuous landmark is a sinister hotel, the Pristina Grand run by one of the freelance Serb warlords who descend into neighboring Bosnia whenever the mood strikes, burning Muslim villages to the ground and carrying off everything of value that is portable. The Grand is the Waldorf Astoria of the clandestine arms trade, The men in the lounge sell assault rifles, grenades, napalm, mines and surface-to-air missiles, which are shipped from Italian and Spanish ports directly to the harbors of Kotor, Montenegro, and Split, Croatia, for trans-shipment into Bosnia and Serbia.

Everyone in Kosovo knows that there are two commodities to discuss in the endless negotiations here: weapons and human beings. And the two currencies to pay for them: dollars and drugs. With good reason the Kosovo Albanians see themselves as the next candidates for ethnic cleansing.. Vienna Police Commissioner M.Gunter Gogl says that "part" of the war is an understatement; he is convinced that international crime syndicates are playing" the dominant role: in the Balkan catastrophe: "Their profits are filling a war chest that is managed in ex-Yugoslavia by members of the Italian and Russian maffias", he recently told journalists. Pascal Auchlin, a criminologist at Switzerland's National Center for Scientific Research, says: "Here and in half-a-dozen other Western countries, there is now an ant's trail of individual drug traffickers, a trail that leads right to Kosovo".

"The Kosovo Albanians have no monopoly on the lower, expandable ranks of the Empire. They are part of an immense tidal wave of desperation that will full organized crime recruiting long into the next century. Put simply, the world's stateless nations-Kosovan Albanians, Kurd from Turkey and Iraq, Tamils from Sri Lanka, Chechens of Russia, Ibos and Ogoni from Nigeria and hundreds of other tribes and ethnic groups whose names are not yet in the headlines--are the army -in waiting of the new crimina superstate. Or the army already in the field, altering its composition at a rate that befuddles law enforcement authorities.

There Are score of stateless nations on the globe today, at least 5,000 politically suppressed tribes, according to the Hague-based Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, a sort of United Nations of the dispossessed. Their populations is in excess of 100 million. At least 20 of the 37 largest UNPO members are already at war against their nominal governments. Most of the rest are poised on the brink".

The recent bombing of Servia by the Nato has aggravated the situation in the Balkan. The political position of Milosovich has strengthened. What will be the next step? Are we at the brink of a situation comparable of 1914, or are the interests of the leading world nations so interwoven, that they can not afford to make war.

In the October 1998, issue of Scientific American, p.24-25: "Inner City violence. The US military tries to prepare for urban warfare" (Dupont). A new type of warfare is in the making. Not a Third World war, but the Pentagon called the new conflicts in urban terrain: MOUT. As we have already seen in 2025 more than two thirds of the world population will live in big cities. The city will become a concrete jungle.

It will be clear that we do not have much hope that this will and can happen. We are too much hooked on a system of growth, consumption etc. Above all addicted to the most powerful drug: black gold (oil). Every part of our life is depending on this drug. Just to give a commonplace example. When we go to our greengrocer (Mr. Brölman) around the corner in our hometown Baarn, we are not realizing that the fruits and vegetables come from all over the world. Practically from all countries of Europe, but also large quantities and varieties from outside Europe. Kiwis and apples from New Zealand; citrus fruits from South Africa, California, Florida, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentine, Uruguay, Morocco; grapes from Chili; strawberries from Israel; peas from Kenya, Ethiopia, Egypt; mango's from Ivory Coast and Mali; bananas and pineapples from Costa Rica and Dominion Republic; tomatoes from the Canary Islands; tropical fruits and coconuts from Thailand. They all are transported by airplane.

One unit of food has to travel an average of 2000 kilometers before it reaches our mouth. One unit of food uses three units of energy. When there is a black-out, we are realizing how much we depend on energy. The doors of the greengrocer can not be opened; the cash desk is stuck. It is pitch dark in the shop. We think that our future is pitch dark, unless some miracle will happen.

Duncan(1993,1997) presented his Olduvai theory, in which he stated that the life-expectancy of Industrial Civilization is horridly short. He predicts a return to the Stone age round 2100. He divided human history into three phases: "Pre-industrial phase (c. 3 000.000 BC to 1765), the Industrial phase (1930-2025) and the post-Industrial phase (c.2100 and beyond).

Can we still find a way out? We have to leave the cities and plant carrots in the countryside. (Just like the Russians are doing now). One of the most impressive facts we came across during our review is the fact that one child born in the US has 60 times more impact on the environment, pollution and use of non-renewable energy resources than a child born in Bangla Desh!

Recently a captain of industry claims that he had found the solution for a sustainable society.

It is Ray Anderson, founder and Chairman of the Board of the billion-dollar Interface Incorporated in the US, a global consortium of companies whose principle business is manufacturing carpeting. He started his speech at a session of Miami's 21 century Outlook Conference (one of the sponsors is the US Department of Energy) as follows (editor Minter, 1998):

" The scientific debate about global warming is over. The debate is now a political debate. Global warming is real. Two thousand five hundred atmospheric scientists agree; seven disagree."

"My message to you today is that the industrial revolution is flawed and is not working. We must move on to another and better industrial revolution."

"Our company's technology, and that of every other company that I know of anywhere in its present form, is plundering the Earth. Nobody is accusing me, however, that I know of. I don't think they are. No one, I stand convicted by me, myself, alone, as a plunderer of the Earth. But not by our civilization's definition. By civilization definition, I'm a captain of industry, a kind of modern-day hero, the entrepreneur who founded the company that provides 6,700 people with jobs that support their spouses and upward of 12.000 children. Altogether, more than 25,000 people comprise the Interface family".

"And I'm part of an endemic process that is going on at a frightening, still-accelerating rate, world wide, to rob our children, their children, theirs, and theirs, and theirs of their futures. There is not an industrial company on Earth, and I feel pretty safe in saying not a company or institution or firm of any kind, not even an architectural firm or an interior design practice, that is sustainable in the sense of meeting its needs without in some measure depriving future generations of the means of meeting their needs. When the Earth runs out of exhaustible resources, when ecosystems collapse, our descendents will be left holding an empty bag. And some day people like me may be put in jail."

"It is a crisis. It is a funeral march to the grave, unless someone, or 'someone's', do something to reverse the deadly decline. And once you understand this, you cannot stand idly by without trying to do something, however you can. Conscience demands it."

In his speech, he gives a solution for all the world problems. He discovered a new technology for the next industrial revolution. Moreover, what are the characteristics of these technologies?

"They will no longer be extractive (take, make, waste) processes; they will be renewable. They will no longer be linear processes; they will be cyclical. They will no longer be driven by fossil fuels. They will be solar and hydrogen driven. It will waste nothing. It will do no harm to the biosphere. "

He does not say for how many people on earth this new technology will apply. For the 80 million people who will join us every year on this globe? I personally think that we need more radical solutions than Mr. Anderson proposes.

Then there is also the Club of Rome. In the seventies they were warning the world for a crisis with their famous publication : The Limits of Growth.

It is interesting to read their point of view on the problems of the world 30 years later.

1998, April 9 was a meeting of the Club of Rome to celebrate their thirty year's existence. The President Ricardo Diez-Hochleitner held a speech with some very remarkable statements:

"On the brink of the Twenty First century, the world - humanity at large- should have no cause for concern but rather should take pride in its many achievements and the good prospects for the decades to come".

· No world -war seems to be in sight after almost six decades since World War II.

· Basic needs have been covered for a considerable number of millions of poor people, thanks to bilateral aid and the world of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's).

· Natural resources and renewable resources of energy are more and more at hand in response to consumer demands, at least while they last.

· Explosive demographic growth has been considerably reduced and tends to be tamed further in the stronghold of less developed countries.

It is amazing to read this speech as the bare facts demonstrate a complete other picture of our present world. No words on the scarcity of our non-renewable resources, the urbanization problems and the exponential population growth, all the wars and ethnic conflicts, the immigration stream, the growing gap between the rich and poor, the increase of poverty and, illiteracy, the alarming global warming, the extinction of many species, the loss of arable land by deforestation and desertification, lower food production etc.

In a special report in the Scientific American of December 1997 (Pelli) "Building the Biggest" a photo of world's tallest building in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) was given. The pinnacles of the 88- story structures reach 451.9 meters. In 2003 they will erect a skyscraper of 106-story 508 meters high In Taipei, Taiwan!

"The urge to build as high as possible appears to be a common trait of human cultures. From the Great Pyramid of Cheops to the Tower of Babel; towers that reached towards heaven".

"And they said, Go to, let us make a city and tower, whose top may reach unto heaven (…) So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city".

The arrogance of human mankind to govern this planet Earth, without having any respect for Nature, to pollute, to deplete in order to build "towers" that must reach the sky. In order to survive we have to leave these "towers" and scatter over the earth!

Figure 36: The end the tower of Babel: the arrogance of power and overrating of human mankind (C.A.Teunissen, 1499-1553)

I am well aware of the hypothetical character of my statements. The only thing I am sure of is that we are caught all together in an exponential trend. The only way such a trend can continue is to change one way or another. Will this change come next century, or even maybe in thousand years, the fact is that our exponential growth has to stop growing.

Even if it proves true that the optimists like Professor Adelman (oil for more than 10.000 years) were right, we still are living in a world where there will be no happy ending for a great number of people.

My geology professor in Amsterdam, Professor H.A. Brouwer, showed us during his lecture a little fossil shell of a marine animal named: Lingula. He told us that this little animal (a brachiopod) lived in the world seas 500 million years ago (Ordovician). The animal has chosen not to specialize. Therefore, we can find this animal practically unchanged in our present world seas. Professor Brouwer's conclusion:

"every living species that specializes at an ever increasing speed is doomed to become extinct. He is at a certain moment not anymore able to cope with the ever-changing environment".

13. Are there people on this earth that have a better chance to survive the coming crisis?

The only people who I can think of who are not yet hooked to our addiction :oil, are the few gatherers and hunters left: Aboriginal in Australia, Andaman Islanders west of Thailand, Tasaday in the Philippine Island Mindanao, Penan in Borneo, Mbuti Pygmies of central Africa, Bushmen in Southern Africa, !Kung in Botswana, San in the Kalahari desert, Maku in Northwest Amazon , Yanomamo in northern Bresil, Montagnais-Naskapi Indians in Quebec. etc

They never domesticated animals or planted crops. They have no leaders, bosses, politics, organized crime, taxes, and laws. They have no private property, everything is shared. There are no rich and no poor people. They consider the natural resources as a gift of nature and that should be respected in every way. (Zerzan, 1998)Aboriginal of Australia.

"To wound the earth is to wound yourself, and if others wound the earth, they are wounding you"(Chatwin,1987)

The culture of the aboriginal is one of the oldest in the world. (Estimates range from 40.000 to 160.000 years). When on the 18th of January 1788 the British came to the Botany Bay south of Sydney there were maybe 1 to 3 million people. Now there are only 230.000 aboriginal people left !

The British lost their North American colonies and were looking for a place to make camps for criminals. They gave the original people the name Aborigine (from the beginning).

The colonists found these people primitive, wild, barbaric and inferior. They lived in clans and tribes and had no visible institutions of government. Thousands of Aboriginal people were killed or contaminated with all sort of illnesses to which they were defenseless.

For the Europeans, land property is a necessity for the economy, but for the aboriginal land is not a property but a living organism.

Their belief in the creation gives a good view on their relation to nature. The Earth is the teacher. They call the period of creation: The Dreaming. The Earth was in the beginning formless. Spirit beings existed within this substance. They emerged from water or land and have taken various forms and identities. Some of these spirits took the form of human or human and animal or human and bird. Terms as kangaroo man, snake man illustrate this close relation between human and organic life. They consider all these forms as equals. Life law, land and the universe are interconnected. When these beings traveled over the earth engaging various activities, they formed earth, rocks, plants, and animals. The world was created and shaped by the actions of the spirits.

For example, a high mountain peak may represent an ancestor who stood up to look around the surrounding country. A rocky ridge may be the track left by an ancestor. An isolated hill is the body of the kangaroo man. For rocks, plants etc they also have explanations for their origins, being activities of the ancestral beings. They consider the land as "My mother". The conception is the result of spirits entering the mother. The dreaming is not confined to the remote past, but remains a present reality.

The Aboriginal people have no written languages. Telling long stories therefore transmits all the traditions and myths round the campfire.

They have a great number of rituals. On reaching puberty the young girl is taken out with elder female relations, who will tell her everything about menstruation and other female affairs.

Then there is the so-called "walkabout". That is the period when they go on a journey without a certain destination and without defined time. They want to honor nature and to refresh their minds. During their voyage, they meet their total past, which is incorporated in the present. In order to read a spiritual message they have to cross in regular times their territory. They are not striving for a good place in heaven. He is content with his life of the present. His destiny is laid down in the immense reservoir of The Dreaming. His only concern is to worship nature as a lively expression of The Dreaming. Very important is their belief in Totems. They are animal or plant species (and sometimes other objects or beings) which are thought to share common descent with a group of people. A clan group focuses on a totem as a symbol of its own identity. It symbolizes society itself. The totem is the incorporation of each human being in his archetype, of his existence before he was born. It is his direct contact with The Dreaming. It is his only direct contact with his archetype, it is his alter ego. Totem is a sign of unity between objects and persons united by something transcendental in a metaphysic dimension. The totem is the key to unlock the door to the universe of The Dreaming. The totem is the liaison with eternity. Everybody has two names, one is his family name and the other a spiritual name.

Birth is for the Aboriginal a supernatural event. He is freed from the chains of mortality. When his body dies his spirit becomes part of the totem environment. The gift or the possession of a totem is a sort of baptizing. This relation with his Dreaming ancestor is more important than his biological parental relationship.

The aboriginal must live a lifestyle that was established by the ancestral beings. Different roles assigned to men, women, and the division of labor. The same holds true for the laws. Languages, art, rituals all were attributed to the time of The Dreaming. They did not distinguish between a cultural and a natural world. Human activities were part of a larger sphere in which animals, plants and natural objects participated. They see themselves as part of nature.

The sense of individuality is completely different from our western culture. The law of community has priority over each personal action of will. The Aboriginal considers himself in the first place a member of a tribe before he experiences himself as an individual. Loneliness does not exist like we are feeling it. His mortal life is always united with his spiritual life.

Their organization of production is directed versus a sustainable economy. They just kill or collect what they need to stay alive. Seasonal conditions strongly influence their organization of production. They distinguish in the North of Australia six seasons.

The notion of sharing according to special rules of obligation is fundamental. The men provide meat food through hunting and fishing. Their weapons are the boomerang and the spear. Women are responsible for vegetable foods by gathering seeds, fruits etc. They use for gathering digging sticks.

The meat foods, which the men bring back to the camp, are shared amongst a wide circle of relations, while the vegetable food brought by the women's are divided under a smaller group of immediate family relations.

The most important skill they developed is tracking. From childhood, all members of society are taught to read the signs on the ground.

There is a far greater emphasis on the social identity than in our western culture and the obligations placed on individuals to conform to the expectations of others.

When they are in relationship there are no bosses; there are no rules. Everybody gives and receives in a structural relationship. The power and the authority come from the land, not from the elected people and not from any decision making structures within the community. This is completely different from the system where power comes from the crown and is filtered down. There is no need for a legislature, courts, police or jails as in our culture. There are though intricate social systems and dispute resolution methods. Aboriginal crime traditionally centers on the breaking of marriage taboos, telling secrets and making magic. Punishment is by public shaming, spearing, clubbing, and scarring certain parts of the body, banishment and psychic sanctions.

Their art is a dialogue between men and nature. In cave paintings, they use four holy colors: red, yellow, white and black. Clothing in warm parts of the world has the function of hiding nakedness as a sort of privacy. It is a way to protect his internal life. For the Aboriginal clothing is only necessary to protect him from the cold nights in the desert. However, for the Aboriginal destroys the covering of his body the internal relation with his land and surroundings.

When we overlook their life one thing becomes clear. They are interconnected with nature, whereas we western countries consider the earth as a commodity to be exploited. This separation between humans and nature is already seen by the false interpretation of the Bible. In the Judeaeo-Christian philosophy God is removed from the natural world. In Genesis 1: 28: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth". Our culture obeyed to the command of to be fruitful and to subdue, but we forgot to replenish the earth and have on the contrary extracted all the valuable non-renewable resources!

Separation of humans from nature has also it's roots in the Classical Greek philosophy which considers humanity being seen as distant from and superior to nature because of its reason or mind.

The Cartesian philosophy also denies the interconnection between human and nature. We introduced this dualism between subject-object, a totally artificial dichotomy.

Aboriginal people believe that if the earth itself could talk it would say "Don't hurt me, leave the nature as it is". The roots in the ground would say "Please don't cut us, don't destroy everything. Just take enough in a balanced way".

Look at our so-called civilization. When we came to their country, we wanted the Aboriginal to live like us and to integrate. Our way of dominating, exploiting the earth's natural resources. We killed these people and had no respect for their religion and culture. Genocide in all aspects. (Edwards,1996)

In the land of the aboriginal in Northern Australia, geologists have found in the early seventies very rich uranium deposits. The Jabiluka deposit is one of the world's largest high-grade uranium deposits. The mining of these deposits have impacts, which are incompatible with the protection of high conservation values. New mining operations at Jabiluka would result in an additional 20 million tons of radioactive tailings or waste. Such tailings would be exposed to erosion and leaching and contaminate Kakadu and the natural resources of the Mirrar people. A number of sacred sites of the Aboriginal would be disturbed by any exploration and mining in the Jabiluka area.

For two decades, Aboriginal and environmental activists have worked to stop the expansion of the uranium industry. Thousands of Australians environmentalists have joined the traditional owners in an unprecedented alliance, the Jabiluka action group. In 1998, they formed a blockade of the site which has resulted in the arrest of several hundreds protestors often under vicious conditions. (Institute for global Communications, 1998).

The Penan are a nomadic people who view the entire rainforest as their home. They have a history of thousands years old. There are still living 7600 Penan people. Maybe a thousand remain deep in the forest living their ancient way of life. They never practiced agriculture and depend on wild populations of sago palms. The Penan people have no bosses, everybody is equal. The plants from which they live are sacred, possessed by souls and born on the same earth that gives birth to the people. Their knowledge of nature is astonishing. They recognize over 100 fruit-trees, some 50 medical plants, 8 dart poison and 10 plant toxins used to kill fish. The biggest sin is a failure to share ("see hun" in their language). The importance of sharing is taught to the children from the earliest age. The concept of private ownership does not exist. The Penan believe that the Creator gave the rainforest to them: Balei Nge Butum. The notion of conservation is deeply embedded in their culture. There is no Penan word for thief.

Unfortunately, the 'civilized people' want from the Penan that they will give up their way of life. We need the tropical hardwood. Prime Minister of Malaysia Datuk Mahatir Mohamed: "We are asking them to give up their unhealthy living conditions and backwardness for better amenities and longer and healthier lifestyle". The Minister of Environment and Tourism James Wong: "We don't want them running around like animals. They have to settle down, otherwise they have no right". The Penan way of life may soon disappear. Their forest is cut down by Malaysian logging companies who have more than 50 % share of tropical log exports on the world market cut down their forest.

The deforestation is a biological disaster. Let me explain why. In a tropical forest the floor on which the trees grow is practically devoid of organic soil. The reason for this is that fallen leaves rot almost before they hit the ground and the nutrients they contain are quickly drawn back up into the canopy. With the abundant rainfall deep roots are not a necessity. It seems strange but the immense trees are built on sand. When the forest is removed, torrential rains wash away the remaining nutrients. The newly formed ground strongly compressed by the heavy machinery becomes a hard pavement of red clay. The floor of a tropical forest is relatively open and easy to transverse. Once cleared some bushes will grow but this secondary forest is nearly impenetrable. Then there is the siltation of the rivers. They are full of mud and logging debris, causing the death of fish. 72% of the forest of the homeland of the Penan tribe is officially designated for commercial exploitation. In 1985 three acres of forest were being cut every minute of every day!

The sad thing for the economy of Sarawak is that ninety percent of the exported woods are unprocessed logs. This means a loss of revenue and employment for the State. The money earned in the timber industry (in 1991 1.3 billion dollars) goes in the pockets of the ruling elite. Between 1963 and 1985 2.8 million hectares or 30% of Sarawak's total forest area were logged. In 1984 another 60% (5.8. million hectares) were licensed out for logging. (Davis, 1991, 1996)

The timber goes to Korea (16.4%), Taiwan (22%) and Japan (46%) in 1989. Japan depends for 85% of its tropical wood on the timber of Malaysia. The imported wood is used in Japan for packaging material, storage crates and furniture. Half of it is used for construction as plywood cement forms, which are used once or twice and then, discarded. But the Penan tribe has not accepted this robbery of their homeland. In February 1987 the Penan issued a declaration asking to stop destroying the forest "or we will be forced to fight. We are peace loving people, but when our very lives are in danger, we will fight. Then in March 1987 armed with blowpipes a group of Penan erected a blockade across a logging road. By October Penan from twenty settlements had joined the protest. It is quite remarkable for the Penan to use violence because in their culture there is a lack of apparent conflict within the traditional Penan society. This is illustrated by the fact that the biggest offence is a failure to share (SIHUN). The Penan people have resisted fiercely to this deforestation. However the government punished them. A Penan statement issued at Baa'Sebutu, October 1993:

" All our huts were torn down with chainsaws and burned. When we were disabled by the tear gas, the police and soldiers went on to destroy our barricade, which we had been guarding for nine months. The police had shields and helmets and they were hitting us without any pity. Some of us bled and fell unconscious. All of our pet monkeys, hens, and dogs were killed. One very sick child died".

14. Why are we destroying civilizations of people that are different from our western so- called civilized world?

When we as so-called civilized people encounter these primitive people, we destroy a delicate social balance that existed between them. We introduce diseases, we transform their ecosystems with alien animals and plants and we bring them new goods and technologies. This destabilization often leads to tribal warfare. Ferguson (1992) has written an article on the tragic consequences of the first contacts between Europeans and native Americans:

"Contact has invariably transformed war patterns, very frequently intensified war and not uncommonly generated war among groups who previously had lived in peace. Many, perhaps most, recorded wars involving tribal peoples can be directly attributed to the circumstances of Western contact".

Looking at the way gatherers and hunters live I am left with a big question. What is the reason that we have always tried to convince them that they have to adjust to our way of life? Why don't we let them live as they have done for so many years in harmony with nature? Is it our arrogance, is it our will to dominate people? I think that the main reason, is that we want them to give up their way of life and force them brutally to adapt our way of life in order that we can get power over them and are able to abuse, exploit and control them.

In order to watch this process with my own eyes I am going to visit in May and June of this year the Aboriginal in Northern Australia and the Penan tribe in Sarawak. Why I am so interested in the way that these original nomadic people are living? I have been intrigued the last thirty years in a group of people in the Netherlands who have lived since 1870 to 1968 a nomadic way of life. In the Dutch language, they named themselves as "Reizigers". It is difficult to translate this into English. The last thirty years I have been intrigued by a group of people in the Netherlands who have lived up till 1968 a nomadic life. There are a number of resemblance's between these Dutch "Reizigers" and the nomadic people I am going to visit. The main resemblance is that they have been forced to give up their nomadic way of life and their culture. They have been deported by brute police force or by bribery to live in for them designed settlements. Although there are quite a number of resemblances there are also some big differences. The "Reizigers" in the Netherlands were before 1870 sedentary people. In the last part of the 19th century especially in the south of the Netherlands, people working on the land could not anymore earn enough for a living and were forced by making all sort products like brushes for milk factories, umbrellas products to sell them all over the country. They also offering their services with the harvest or to clean roads from snow, to mend chairs, to grind knifes etc. So they have to travel with wagons first pulled by dogs and later by horses. The local authorities did not accept there way of life. The "Reizigers" were stigmatised and considered as vagabonds who are living of stealing. This negative image has lead to the discrimination and persecution of these "Reizigers" until from the present day at the end of this century! "Everything that moves is scaring people". A good example of how the authorities made rules in order to make life impossible for them: in 1887 the municipality of Beek and Donk proclaimed in article 12: "It is prohibited to owners of wagons to take the horse out on public routes and to sleep during the night in the wagons. When they are not obeying this law they will be removed by the police". In 1918 a law was proclaimed to put a halt to the increasing population of "Reizigers" the protection of the society against the risks of the presence of the travelling group of people who are living in very bad economic and hygienic circumstances, they are a direct threat to public order or health. In 1936 the Minister of the Interior sent a circular to all provinces and municipalities:" the camps of "Reizigers" have to be fenced in such a way that they can not be seen from the public route". In 1938 there were already plans to assemble the "Reizigers" in big camps. In 1940 Mr L.A. van Doorn published a paper with the title "Wagons of the "Reizigers" have to disappear". Then came the fatal year of 1968. All "Reizigers" were assembled in 50 big camps with 50 to 80 standing places for their wagons, sometimes with brutal police force. The camps were enclosed by a fence and at the entrance a barrier with a police post! This has been a traumatic experience. In 1970 there were 3584 wagons and in the nineties more than 9000 wagons. The reason is simple. The "Reizigers" are now marrying with citizens. More then 90 % of the citizens preferred the wagon to a house. In the nineties the authorities were not happy with this sharp increase of the "Reizigers-"citizens population. In 1995 they started to break up these big camps in smaller units. The "Reizigers" were well adjusted in these thirty years in these big camps, they made a strong protest against this new deportation policy. In my hometown Baarn, I had already a good contact with the "Reizigers" since 1974, so they asked me to help them fight against the deportation of their wagons. I succeeded to convince the authorities that forceful deportation is not a good solution. Only on the basis of voluntariness they can choose the place they like. After this success I was asked by three other camps: Hilversum, Leiden and The Hague. After some hard fights, legal and illegal, we got the promise from Hilversum and Leiden that the "Reizigers" would never be displaced by brutal force against their will. In The Hague the struggle with the authorities is still going on, but there are signs that we will reach the same result as in the other camps. Unfortunately in the last years the authorities succeeded in some areas to put so many pressure on the "Reizigers" that they finally gave in and were displaced to smaller units. The authorities literally promised them golden mountains and advised them to move, otherwise the police would take 'care'. In many cases the grounds on which the big camps are situated, are far more valuable for buildings or luxury houses. This argument is however never expressed. In the case of the camp in Hilversum we found indeed substantial evidence that there were projects for the building of luxury houses on the ground of the camp. In the so-called democratic country Holland there is still a minority group which is discriminated and persecuted by not only the authorities, but also by the media and public opinion. My experiences in the last years with the "Reizigers" are very positive. They have still a strong solidarity feeling. They take care of the sick and the older people. They are not put away in special clinics but stay at the camp till they die. Unfortunately the original culture of the "Reizigers" is gradually disappearing. The younger generations has not lived a nomadic live, so they lose the capabilities to survive under difficult circumstances. In 25 years from now, we may only will have the legends of the "Reizigers". But at the present we have still lot of work to do in order to get the public more informed on their history and culture.

The species Homo Sapiens has still many years to go. Maybe only those will survive in the future, who can live in a sustainable world, like the 'primitive' hunters and gatherers. However, those who have robbed the earth of all its non-renewable resources are doomed to become extinct. Is there still time to stop this ravaging behavior? We must leave our homes, our cars, our factories, and all our luxury we have worked so hard for. My only hope is that there will be a collective wave of insight all over the world that we cannot go further on this path with a dead end. Who knows that this wave will spread with a lightning speed over the world? Until now we are thinking:

However, you never know how quick something can change. I frequently talk with people on this subject. Only a few are interested. The majority however does not want to be disturbed. "Don't confuse me with facts, I have made up my mind". They like to continue their way of living. The reason I have written this article is the hope I still have that people will contact me, in order to exchange thoughts and ideas on how we should react to the knowledge that our civilization is doomed to become extinct.

1	Introduction	The biggest cover up in history (After Jay Hanson, 10/11/97) Dr Tom de Booij (Link 1: Who is Tom de Booij, click here) Adress: Koningsweg 45, 3743 ET Baarn, The Netherlands Tel. +31 35 54 128 52, Fax. +31 35 54 159 80, E-mail: 5star@tiscali.nl
2	Geological history of our universe, earth and life
3	The history of human mankind
4	What will happen on this planet earth until the year 2025?
5	The exponential growth of the world population
6	The world trend of urbanization
7	How many people can live on this earth with a sustainable economy?
8	What is left over of our fossil fuel resources in the year 2025?
9	The coming world crisis
10	How much food, fresh water we have in the year 2025?
11	How many wars will be fought until the year 2025?
12	Is there still a way to avoid a world crisis?
13	Are there people on this earth that have a better chance to survive the coming crisis?
14	Why we destroying civilizations of people who are different from our western so called civilized world?
15	Conclusion