Hey Boomers! Demographics discussion on energy usage

[EatenByLimestone]

I’ve been deep diving on demographics. One topic that seems to come up an awful lot is population age in regards to consumption.

After WWII there was a worldwide baby boom… the boomers. They’ll soon be majority retired as they’ve hit their mid 60s.

In many countries, the population has dropped off after the boomers as they didn’t have many children, and due to policies such as China’s 1 child.

There seems to be a consensus that major changes are coming world wide due to this.

I’ve never seen this extrapolated to carbon, but it seems likely that as a giant generation passes on in the next couple/few decades, yet isn’t replaced, worldwide emissions will fall with the population.

So, it looks like the climate issue will sorta solve itself. Am I off base? It looks like the population of many countries is going to be cut in half.

 

[ABMax24]

I don't buy your premise at all.

There are about 2.5 times more people aged 20-40 than people aged 60-80.

If anything the problem gets worse as these 20-40 year olds age, they acquire more wealth, and by doing so enables them to purchase more energy and emit more carbon.

The baby boom was significant for it's time, but overall there are far more births per year now compared to then.

I know this is a touchy topic, and looking at it from a purely mathematical sense, one of the most effective ways to limit human impact on this planet is to provide free birth control worldwide.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Ok. There should be many more young than old. But what happens when there isn’t? Look at the 1950 charts. Pyramidal. Look at Mexico now. Look at the the US. Then look at the other countries.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

It’s also interesting when there are many fewer women then men.

Here’s Russia.

There will be many fewer people in 30 years.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Japan


If the developed nations don’t have people, they can’t produce emissions.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

India and South Africa look healthy.

 

[ABMax24]

Ok. There should be many more young than old. But what happens when there isn’t? Look at the 1950 charts. Pyramidal. Look at Mexico now. Look at the the US. Then look at the other countries.

View attachment 297720 View attachment 297721 View attachment 297722 View attachment 297723 View attachment 297724 View attachment 297725

But the carbon emissions per Capita for most of these countries (except maybe China) have peaked and yes will continue to decline.

Then look at the population pyramids for India, The Phillipines, Indonesia. Countries which all have higher birth rates, and growing per capita emission intensities.

 

[EbS-P]

I’m to lazy to find Japans graph. I think there would be a good case study on a developed nation with not much population growth.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

3rd world people dont have half the emissions that the developed nations do.

 

[ABMax24]

3rd world people dont have half the emissions that the developed nations do.

Yet, and that's my point. India, Phillipines, and Indonesia make up 1/3 of the worlds population and are set to rapidly increase their emissions intensities in the next 25 years.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Will a slum in manilla or Bombay really produce the same amount of emissions as an industrial hub? I have a hard time believing that people trying to survive are going to be accumulation trinkets.

 

[ABMax24]

Will the cheap labor in India remain largely untapped? Or will manufacturing be shifted from China to other jurisdictions as the wealth of the Chinese increase?

Not to mention the one child policy will have severe implications on the Chinese workforce in coming decades.

It's only a matter of time before India and the Asia Pacific are en slaved en masse by the capitalists for profit.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

If we continue to back away from being the world’s police force, will globalism continue to exist as we know it?

If it does, I don’t expect that China will retain the manufacturing it currently does. Men retire at 60 in China, women at 55. I suspect it’ll go to places like Mexico, which has lots of young and doesn’t have to import all their materials. It’s a more stable place to manufacture things.

If it does not, and the Persian Gulf erupts in regional war, a couple key straights get closed, Russia’s gas is still off line… who knows what happens. Mexico still looks like a secure place to manufacture things, in a world like that.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

China’s oil dependency and the Straight of Melacca.

The Malacca Dilemma: No panacea but multiple possibilities - ICS Research Blog

Sanjana Krishnan, Research Intern, ICS The death of Mao Zedong in 1976 gave rise to a series of dramatic political changes that led the emergence of Deng Xiaoping as the next leader of the country. Deng led China through a path that has now made the country the industrial giant it is now. This was …

icsin.org

Closing that straight could shut down SE Asia. 16 million barrels a day go through that pass. Much of that goes to China. Lots of other goods do too.

Indian goods could easily be forced around the Horn of Africa if the Suez gets closed again. That’ll significantly increase shipping costs.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of manufacturing comes back to N America and inflation is here for the next 10 years.

 

[woodgeek]

Yeah Matt. Demographics is a big deal. But you are missing two big points.

1) You are looking at the Developed countries and China and India. Of these the US and India have 'ok' demographics, China is a chitshow, and the other developed countries are not great. If you look at developing countries however, you find lots of populous countries with big young cohorts. This includes most African countries and closer to home Mexico and Latin America. So the 'demographic transition', when development leads to smaller families, has been a 'wave' which is only just now reaching Africa and Latin America.

If those two areas can achieve some political stability that attracts more foreign investment, they too can become populous developed regions. This is in fact the 'goal' of the UN/IMF, of course. Development.

2) Re global warming, obv most people do not have access to developed world level of 'energy services'. So the global energy supply will need to grow massively (2-3X) to supply those needs even with a flat population. I know folks here say 'that's never going to happen', but guess what... it has happened in every other country that developed. Growing out those energy services on a fossil model would be ruinous to the climate, so we need to grow out access to energy on the NEW renewable/sustainable model.

Keep in mind that a lot of these currently underserved people live in more tropical than temperate areas. So compared to folks in the northern US or EU, they have much lower space heating needs and better solar resources. Their need for AC is comparatively easy to meet in a solar-dominated energy system, obviously. They will also build their infrastructure and housing stock to reflect climate change and to be more efficient than US/EU legacy housing. It will just take investment, money and time.

Also:

The US demographics are good, but that is mostly bc of immigration since 1980. many countries (like Japan and Russia and China) either won't or can't do immigration, and are kinda trapped by their demographics. The US can and does fill in labor shortages with immigrants. My personal opinion is that the Trump gap in immigration is contributing to the current labor shortage and inflation surge in the US.

In this picture, N. America is a good block. The US is a power-house and largely (but not completely) self-contained. Given our huge demand, we could use more minerals and energy reserves... and Canada provides that. And we have a high cost of labor, and Mexico has a large pool of cheaper labor. So as a block, we've got it all. If we start making chips and mining rare earths, N America is almost self-sufficient.

Mexico in particular DOES get a lot of US investment (think car companies). This is 'friend-shoring', we are gaining access to cheaper labor, but doing it in a friendly neighboring country versus a place a world away. This is a win-win relative to off-shoring, bc it is good to have more stable and prosperous neighbors, and shorter local supply chains (from a Natl security perspective).

Note: I am trying to state the above from an economic perspective, and not from a POV about what is right or wrong or desirable or undesirable.

 

[woodgeek]

Matt,

The YouTube algo has been feeding me a LOT of stuff about 'China collapse' and 'end of globalization' that I have been looking at and reflecting upon. When I see 'doomer' stuff I tend to get skeptical, so my first reaction is to assume it is 'click-bait' but that there is probably a grain of truth there.

My current thoughts:

I tend to trust 'economists' predictions that are based upon LOTs of data from many different countries in many periods, rather than the melodramatic speculation of uncredentialed tubers. Like my current fave Noah Smith, who has written a LOT about China too (as well as demographics and renewable energy).

His (economist) take is that all countries follow an 'S'-shaped development curve for their wealth or GDP per capita. The initial part of the 'S' looks like an exponential, and all countries doing that look basically the same... rapid growth, building of infrastructure, flowing in of foreign investment. And the thing about exponentials, is that if you extrapolate them, they all go to the moon/infinity. So you could niavely take Chinese GDP/capita 2000-2010, and project that is would pass the US figure in 2030. Easy. And ofc the Chinese leadership DID do that extrapolation, and promise that to their people.

The data show that these exponentials have gotten faster over time. China's was fast, but no different from other countries that developed at the same time. This is seen as a feature of technology. Newer tech is faster to deploy and more productive than tech from 50 or 100 years ago. It has nothing to do (apparently) with the virtues (like work ethic or savings) of the people doing the development or how skilled the managers are. Tech adoption speeds have just gotten faster. Think iPhones versus washing machines.

But economists know that that exponential growth never continues forever. Instead, at some point the S curve rolls over, and the GDP/capita plateaus, with a growth rate that looks like a developed country (a couple percent per year). Here there ARE variations by country, some countries like Japan and S. Korea plateau at a rather high level (a significant fraction of the US level) and others kinda fizzle out and plateau at a low level. A country kinda in the middle is Poland. Poland is waaay richer than it was 40 years ago, but it is still like a third of the US level. And growing slowly with stable investments.

The economists have shown that where a country ends up DOES depend on management. Especially freedom from corruption and oligarchy. If money starts getting skimmed into pockets during the go-go exponential phase, or a lot of mal-investment happens (like bridges to nowhere) then eventually that DOES catch up with the country, and they are less well off when the party ends. The success of Japan is that they have relatively low levels of corruption, and followed a US model very closely.

So where does China come out? The exponential growth 2000-2010 started to level off in 2010, and it is now possible to 'fit' the Chinese data to the 'S' curve that describes these processes, and project where they will plateau. And the answer is... Poland. Not as rich as the US per capita by a long shot. And lagging both their Japanese and Korean neighbors. A BIG populous country with a little more wealth per capita than they have now, but that's it. They're not going to eclipse the US. Period.

The 'China threat' is a paper tiger.

That's economics. There is no way they can do 'better' than that. The Poland projection says that their management of development has been 'about average' compared to other countries, both in its speed and its final wealth asymptote. This development was a HUGE win for humanity... pulling 1 billion people out of poverty. Wow! Go China!

But compared to the promises and aspirations of the CCP, this is a HUGE shortfall. They are promising their people (and getting political capital) that China will take over the world economically (and militarily), that the US/EU are in terminal decline, and that THIS is inevitable... based upon a bogus projection of exponential growth (that has to fudge the data since 2010). I think wealthy elites in China (many with MBAs from Wharton) understand that this will not end well, and so have escape plans set up to the EU/US/Canada for they and their families. And political leaders know that a democratic process will bring a reckoning for them... and so are turning to authoritarianism and misinformation to stay in power. There is no other way, and this is a story as old as time.

How will it shake out? That's politics and hard to predict. Will they be able to manufacture most of the worlds crap for the next 10 or 20 years? I wouldn't bet on it. This is why the US has a $$$ crash program of 'reshoring' and 'friend-shoring' critical supply chains in all those Biden Bills passed over the last year. Its not protectionism or populism... its Natl Security.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Wow! Great posts! I will have to read it carefully later so I can meaningfully respond. I don’t think we are looking at things too different. I’m not sure I agree with you about the 3rd world developing. But I’ll jump back on this later tonight!

 

[Ashful]

Will a slum in manilla or Bombay really produce the same amount of emissions as an industrial hub? I have a hard time believing that people trying to survive are going to be accumulation trinkets.

...set to rapidly increase their emissions intensities in the next 25 years.

Today's slums are tomorrow's industrial hubs. It's the way the world works.

Post-war West Germany -> 1950's Japan -> 1970's Taiwan -> 1990's China -> who's next? Capitalism and a desire for minimum cost manufacturing will perpetuate this trend, until some new factor (global instability, transport costs, legislation) forces otherwise.

edit... well said ABMax24. Should have read your next post before replying:

It's only a matter of time before India and the Asia Pacific are en slaved en masse by the capitalists for profit.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Yeah Matt. Demographics is a big deal. But you are missing two big points.

1) You are looking at the Developed countries and China and India. Of these the US and India have 'ok' demographics, China is a chitshow, and the other developed countries are not great. If you look at developing countries however, you find lots of populous countries with big young cohorts. This includes most African countries and closer to home Mexico and Latin America. So the 'demographic transition', when development leads to smaller families, has been a 'wave' which is only just now reaching Africa and Latin America.

If those two areas can achieve some political stability that attracts more foreign investment, they too can become populous developed regions. This is in fact the 'goal' of the UN/IMF, of course. Development.

2) Re global warming, obv most people do not have access to developed world level of 'energy services'. So the global energy supply will need to grow massively (2-3X) to supply those needs even with a flat population. I know folks here say 'that's never going to happen', but guess what... it has happened in every other country that developed. Growing out those energy services on a fossil model would be ruinous to the climate, so we need to grow out access to energy on the NEW renewable/sustainable model.

Keep in mind that a lot of these currently underserved people live in more tropical than temperate areas. So compared to folks in the northern US or EU, they have much lower space heating needs and better solar resources. Their need for AC is comparatively easy to meet in a solar-dominated energy system, obviously. They will also build their infrastructure and housing stock to reflect climate change and to be more efficient than US/EU legacy housing. It will just take investment, money and time.

Also:

The US demographics are good, but that is mostly bc of immigration since 1980. many countries (like Japan and Russia and China) either won't or can't do immigration, and are kinda trapped by their demographics. The US can and does fill in labor shortages with immigrants. My personal opinion is that the Trump gap in immigration is contributing to the current labor shortage and inflation surge in the US.

In this picture, N. America is a good block. The US is a power-house and largely (but not completely) self-contained. Given our huge demand, we could use more minerals and energy reserves... and Canada provides that. And we have a high cost of labor, and Mexico has a large pool of cheaper labor. So as a block, we've got it all. If we start making chips and mining rare earths, N America is almost self-sufficient.

Mexico in particular DOES get a lot of US investment (think car companies). This is 'friend-shoring', we are gaining access to cheaper labor, but doing it in a friendly neighboring country versus a place a world away. This is a win-win relative to off-shoring, bc it is good to have more stable and prosperous neighbors, and shorter local supply chains (from a Natl security perspective).

Note: I am trying to state the above from an economic perspective, and not from a POV about what is right or wrong or desirable or undesirable.

Yeah, I think we have to look at it from an economic perspective. Since it’s business, we have to assume that profit comes before feelings. I WISH ethics would play a bigger part, but that certainly can’t be counted on.

In regards to the developing world, and I’m thinking more about SE Asia, Africa and such ( not necessarily Latin America), I’m not certain that they will develop in the predictable way that they would have pre Covid. I think that changed how we look at globalization. Maybe they will become regional producers, but I’m not sure they will be the next China. This is even if they become politically stable. I’m not certain that businesses will want to put up with supply chain disruptions that we’ve seen the past couple years. I think you’re going to see less Penney chasing for the cheapest product and the costs will be pushed to the consumer.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Matt,

The YouTube algo has been feeding me a LOT of stuff about 'China collapse' and 'end of globalization' that I have been looking at and reflecting upon. When I see 'doomer' stuff I tend to get skeptical, so my first reaction is to assume it is 'click-bait' but that there is probably a grain of truth there.

My current thoughts:

I tend to trust 'economists' predictions that are based upon LOTs of data from many different countries in many periods, rather than the melodramatic speculation of uncredentialed tubers. Like my current fave Noah Smith, who has written a LOT about China too (as well as demographics and renewable energy).

His (economist) take is that all countries follow an 'S'-shaped development curve for their wealth or GDP per capita. The initial part of the 'S' looks like an exponential, and all countries doing that look basically the same... rapid growth, building of infrastructure, flowing in of foreign investment. And the thing about exponentials, is that if you extrapolate them, they all go to the moon/infinity. So you could niavely take Chinese GDP/capita 2000-2010, and project that is would pass the US figure in 2030. Easy. And ofc the Chinese leadership DID do that extrapolation, and promise that to their people.

The data show that these exponentials have gotten faster over time. China's was fast, but no different from other countries that developed at the same time. This is seen as a feature of technology. Newer tech is faster to deploy and more productive than tech from 50 or 100 years ago. It has nothing to do (apparently) with the virtues (like work ethic or savings) of the people doing the development or how skilled the managers are. Tech adoption speeds have just gotten faster. Think iPhones versus washing machines.

But economists know that that exponential growth never continues forever. Instead, at some point the S curve rolls over, and the GDP/capita plateaus, with a growth rate that looks like a developed country (a couple percent per year). Here there ARE variations by country, some countries like Japan and S. Korea plateau at a rather high level (a significant fraction of the US level) and others kinda fizzle out and plateau at a low level. A country kinda in the middle is Poland. Poland is waaay richer than it was 40 years ago, but it is still like a third of the US level. And growing slowly with stable investments.

The economists have shown that where a country ends up DOES depend on management. Especially freedom from corruption and oligarchy. If money starts getting skimmed into pockets during the go-go exponential phase, or a lot of mal-investment happens (like bridges to nowhere) then eventually that DOES catch up with the country, and they are less well off when the party ends. The success of Japan is that they have relatively low levels of corruption, and followed a US model very closely.

So where does China come out? The exponential growth 2000-2010 started to level off in 2010, and it is now possible to 'fit' the Chinese data to the 'S' curve that describes these processes, and project where they will plateau. And the answer is... Poland. Not as rich as the US per capita by a long shot. And lagging both their Japanese and Korean neighbors. A BIG populous country with a little more wealth per capita than they have now, but that's it. They're not going to eclipse the US. Period.

The 'China threat' is a paper tiger.

That's economics. There is no way they can do 'better' than that. The Poland projection says that their management of development has been 'about average' compared to other countries, both in its speed and its final wealth asymptote. This development was a HUGE win for humanity... pulling 1 billion people out of poverty. Wow! Go China!

But compared to the promises and aspirations of the CCP, this is a HUGE shortfall. They are promising their people (and getting political capital) that China will take over the world economically (and militarily), that the US/EU are in terminal decline, and that THIS is inevitable... based upon a bogus projection of exponential growth (that has to fudge the data since 2010). I think wealthy elites in China (many with MBAs from Wharton) understand that this will not end well, and so have escape plans set up to the EU/US/Canada for they and their families. And political leaders know that a democratic process will bring a reckoning for them... and so are turning to authoritarianism and misinformation to stay in power. There is no other way, and this is a story as old as time.

How will it shake out? That's politics and hard to predict. Will they be able to manufacture most of the worlds crap for the next 10 or 20 years? I wouldn't bet on it. This is why the US has a $$$ crash program of 'reshoring' and 'friend-shoring' critical supply chains in all those Biden Bills passed over the last year. Its not protectionism or populism... its Natl Security.

I wouldn’t call myself a doomer. Things change, but humans adapt. I see a lot of things about China splitting apart, or Russia. I don’t buy it. Kind of like the church, the leaders have done everything they can to destroy it, yet it survives. It’s just not the same as it was 2000 years ago.

Corruption is never good.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Today's slums are tomorrow's industrial hubs. It's the way the world works.

Post-war West Germany -> 1950's Japan -> 1970's Taiwan -> 1990's China -> who's next? Capitalism and a desire for minimum cost manufacturing will perpetuate this trend, until some new factor (global instability, transport costs, legislation) forces otherwise.

edit... well said ABMax24. Should have read your next post before replying:

This assumes that business learned nothing from Covid, Ukraine and Taiwan. As long as the world relies on a single global economy, we’re going to put up with stoppages and big lags in availability. I think you’re going to see more regional trading. I think you’ll see more high end manufacturing coming back here, and the lower end stuff going south.

 

[GrumpyDad]

I don't buy your premise at all.

There are about 2.5 times more people aged 20-40 than people aged 60-80.

If anything the problem gets worse as these 20-40 year olds age, they acquire more wealth, and by doing so enables them to purchase more energy and emit more carbon.

The baby boom was significant for it's time, but overall there are far more births per year now compared to then.

I know this is a touchy topic, and looking at it from a purely mathematical sense, one of the most effective ways to limit human impact on this planet is to provide free birth control worldwide.

I stumbled across this thread. I agree with you. The boomers were big consumers early age but nothing like people today. And their driving distances were far shorter. They also had far less energy consumption inside the household. Remember when kids rode bikes, climbed trees, built forts, play tag, rode their bikes, played baseball, swam? Remember when the boomers were SUPER skinny vs people of today? Today's generation is fat, sit in front of computers with multiple screens all day, when actually moving their bodies their face is glued to a phone, run a heater in one room with AC on throughout the whole house, sit and complain all day (even the wealthy). The boomers were a great generation. Makes me wish I was part of that generation. Alas Im somewhere in the middle of the lazy fat people, and the constantly moving hard working people.
So yea, the more people are imprisoned with devices like the one Im typing on, the more their urge or dare I say addiction to be 'connected' to people via electronics will never be satisfied.

And all of that adds up to a HUGE increase in carbon usage. Which, I truly believe does eventually equate to something. What that is, I have no idea. We know what happens when a large volcano erupts. It changes the weather. So it's not hard to figure out that our emissions are changing stuff too.

 

[SpaceBus]

I stumbled across this thread. I agree with you. The boomers were big consumers early age but nothing like people today. And their driving distances were far shorter. They also had far less energy consumption inside the household. Remember when kids rode bikes, climbed trees, built forts, play tag, rode their bikes, played baseball, swam? Remember when the boomers were SUPER skinny vs people of today? Today's generation is fat, sit in front of computers with multiple screens all day, when actually moving their bodies their face is glued to a phone, run a heater in one room with AC on throughout the whole house, sit and complain all day (even the wealthy). The boomers were a great generation. Makes me wish I was part of that generation. Alas Im somewhere in the middle of the lazy fat people, and the constantly moving hard working people.
So yea, the more people are imprisoned with devices like the one Im typing on, the more their urge or dare I say addiction to be 'connected' to people via electronics will never be satisfied.

And all of that adds up to a HUGE increase in carbon usage. Which, I truly believe does eventually equate to something. What that is, I have no idea. We know what happens when a large volcano erupts. It changes the weather. So it's not hard to figure out that our emissions are changing stuff too.

The data actually indicates the opposite. People are using less carbon per capita today, but Boomers still make the majority. Your "observations" are anecdotal at best.

per capital emissions 1970-2020

 

[woodgeek]

Indeed @SpaceBus. We have been living in an expensive energy era since the 1970s, before that energy was cheap like we (non-Boomers) can hardly imagine. The result is that the increase in energy services (more AC, bigger houses, more HP engines) has happened gradually, constrained by tech improvement to efficiency. As a result, the per capita CO2 emissions have gone down even as energy services have gone up.

This is the point of renewable energy... cheap unlimited renewables mean that we will get to a place where higher energy usage will not break the bank or the climate, and both energy use and energy service can go UP UP UP. Think electric SUVs for everyone, if not small flying cars.

 

[begreen]

This is the point of renewable energy... cheap unlimited renewables mean that we will get to a place where higher energy usage will not break the bank or the climate, and both energy use and energy service can go UP UP UP. Think electric SUVs for everyone, if not small flying cars.

Cheap, and unlimited, is pushing it I think. The earth has a finite amount of resources. Unless population growth and consumption decrease, the prospect is not sustainable, at least not on our current trajectory.