Carrying capacity is an ecological concept concerning the population any environment can maintain. A maximum is determined by the availability of food, water, and shelter from adversity such as weather or predators. In a meadow with a stream, for example, the number of mice would be determined by the amount of food available.
In 1856, when the first commercial oil well was punched, world
population was 1.2 billion. Today, 166 years later, world population surpasses seven billion, and for the most part people are better fed than the
1.2 billion in 1856. For example, 4% of the population of the United States are involved in agriculture, but American agriculture feeds 16% of the world. Considering United States population is 4% of world population, 1.6% of the world population is feeding 16% of world population. That's truly astonishing.
This is made possible by the energy liberated by
that and follow-on oil wells. Perhaps this is best illustrated by
the increase of GDP per capita in spite of the six-fold increase in population. Note how well it correlates with bringing petroleum online after centuries of virtually flat or little progress.
In 1968, the book,
The Population Bomb, became a best seller. It began "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial
increase in the world death rate..."
That, of course, didn't happen, and won't unless the greens realize their goal of de-developing the world. Almost every energy project, whether just another well or a major pipeline such as Keystone XL, meets opposition using any means possible. The United States is already crisscrossed by numerous pipelines, so another hardly merits the attention it is getting. Note, too, many pipelines already cross the borders with both Canada and Mexico, so Keystone XL is nothing new. The heavy oil of the Canadian tar sands is meant to replace the heavy oil now coming from Venezuela. Converting the refineries that now handle heavy oil would be difficult and expensive, and Canada would be able to receive an additional $30 per barrel they now must discount their oil because of the transportation difficulty and expense.
In other words, factual truth seems no impediment to stopping any energy project. Were the greens able to "get rid of oil," the consequent question would be "How do you intend to kill the six billion increase of population petroleum supports?"
