To a first approximation, everything we’ve done since 1900, including agriculture, has been the result of our use of fossil fuels. The biophysical driver of fossil fuel energy transcends all political boundaries and philosophies. Fossil fuels have supplied 89% of the total primary energy used throughout the world over the last fifty five years, and supply 87% of the energy used today, according to BP Statistical Review.

Agriculture started the ball rolling about 8,000 years ago, and got our population to 1.8 billion in 1900 without fossil fuels. What we now call the pre-industrial era. The biophysical driver of fossil fuel energy transcends all political boundaries and philosophies.

Politics has nothing to offer the situation. The logistic did not take off until the serious use of fossil fuels began in about 1900. Without fossil fuels we would have seen some additional growth but nothing like we have seen in the last 100 years “We are dealing with two opposing forces,

the scientific power of food production and the biologic power of human reproduction”. “There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort.” N Borlaug

Click to Enlarge

“When a population surpasses its carrying capacity it enters a condition known as overshoot.  Because carrying capacity is defined as the maximum population that an environment can maintain indefinitely, overshoot must by definition be temporary.  Populations always decline to (or below) the carrying capacity.  How long they stay in overshoot depends on how many stored resources there are to support their inflated numbers.  Resources may be food, but they may also be any resource that helps maintain their numbers.  For humans one of the primary resources is energy, whether it is tapped as flows (sunlight, wind, biomass) or stocks (coal, oil, gas, uranium etc.).  A species usually enters overshoot when it taps a particularly rich but exhaustible stock of a resource.  Like oil, for instance”… Paul Chefurka Sustainability Activist


  1. Talford says:

    It is costing the world Trillions trying to control the climate. Why not direct the money towards family planning in the developing countries, who make up nearly half of the world’s population and are not signatories to Paris Climate Accord. Reduce populations and you reduce emissions.

  2. Bonza Wright says:

    If you are a true climate activist then you should not be using anything that has been manufactured by the use of fossil fuels. The reality is you would not be alive today without them.

  3. Sally Anne says:

    Apparently these bush fires are igniting naturally, like some a sort of instantaneous combustion, due to climate change This is what the ghost (BT) has insinuated in the Guardian newspaper. Mind you he is still very angry at being ousted as leader of the liberal party. It was not because of the record number of news poll that showed him behind, but the fear among his detractors that he would have won the last election had he remained the leader.

  4. John Arnold says:

    As Australia endures a series of more intense and record-breaking heatwaves in recent summers, the 1896 event is sometimes viewed as evidence that Australia has always experienced extraordinary heat, and that the effects of climate change are overblown even though Bourke, NSW, is recorded as hitting 48.9C three times in 1896, with a maximum temperature of 38C for over three weeks straight BUT climate scientists say the methods used to record temperature in 1896 were flawed and heatwaves today are hotter! ABC reporters: Sophie Meixner and Daniel Nancarrow Posted 21 Dec 2019.

  5. dave says:

    Has any climate activist ever bothered to read the Paris Accord? According to its critics it was somewhere between a farce and a fraud. Countries didn’t have to mention GHG in their commitment if they didn’t want to. Just to send in any piece of paper they wanted to. The media announced that CHINA and IINDIA had made major commitments. But all CHINA pledged was to reach peak emissions by about 2030. In other words, CHINA simply promised to do what exactly what they were already going to do anyway, or pledged even less.. INDIA made no pledge to limit emissions at all. Only to become more efficient. But to become efficient less quickly. So their pledge was actually to slow down. PAKISTAN, pledged to reach a peak at some point after which to begin reducing emissions. They were then all stapled together and held up and acclaimed, “This is amazing”!

  6. Barbara says:

    Russia has caved in to the fossil fuel industry and have no plan to reduces emissions, likewise Saudi Arabia who seem more intent on developing atolls such as the Maldives who are supposed to have disappeared by now due to sea level rise.

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.