Is there a hockeystick shape in water use, species extinction etc.?
First, thanks for a brilliant course! Such a collection if arguments is really useful in debates. I have a question though:
increase in water use, species extinction, fisheries exploited and forest loss
is all said to have a hockeystick shape. But the graphs in chapter 3, in my
eyes, don’t show such a shape. Population growth, oil consume, and to some
degree money, clearly show a hockeystick shape.
How do you explain the comparison with the first mentioned graphs?
Do they only partly resemble hockeysticks?
Or is the point maybe that these graphs over longer time span could get a clear
hockeystick shape? But if this is the case, what prof is there for the shape to
appear in the future?
Since these are some of the basics of the course I would like them explained.
I think the explanation is more that whenever you have a constant steady growth over any given period then the growth will be exponential. This is very well explained in Prof Bartlett’s video. It’s everywhere on the net and well worth a look.
Water does have another consideration and that is that although it is finite, it’s never really lost. It’s continually recycled.
Where it becomes a problem is where our population grows at such a rate that we need water quicker than it is naturally recycled.
This is pretty interesting stuff. Keep up the good work.
I’m still looking for drinking water production data, but found at this site an interesting link comparing and contrasting peak water to peak oil.