Update I thought I’d repost this a year on, and reopen the discussion 10 September 2015
Reader ZM points me to a paper with this title, by Graham Turner of the University of Melbourne. Not only does Turner answer “Yes”, he gives a date: 2015. That’s a pretty big call to be making, given that 2015 is less than four months away.
The abstract reads:
The Limits to Growth “standard run” (or business-as-usual, BAU) scenario produced about forty years ago aligns well with historical data that has been updated in this paper. The BAU scenario results in collapse of the global economy and environment (where standards of living fall at rates faster than they have historically risen due to disruption of normal economic functions), subsequently forcing population down. Although the modelled fall in population occurs after about 2030—with death rates rising from 2020 onward, reversing contemporary trends—the general onset of collapse first appears at about 2015 when per capita industrial output begins a sharp decline. Given this imminent timing, a further issue this paper raises is whether the current economic difficulties of the global financial crisis are potentially related to mechanisms of breakdown in the Limits to Growth BAU scenario. In particular, contemporary peak oil issues and analysis of net energy, or energy return on (energy) invested, support the Limits to Growth modelling of resource constraints underlying the collapse.
A central part of the argument, citing Simmons is that critics of LtG wrongly interpeted the original model as projecting a collapse beginning in 2000, whereas the correct date is 2015.
I’ve been over this issue in all sorts of ways (see here and here for example, or search on Peak Oil). So readers won’t be surprised to learn that I don’t buy this story. I won’t bother to argue further: unless the collapse is even more rapid than Turner projects, I’ll be around to eat humble pie in 2016 when the downturn in output (and the corresponding upsurge in oil prices) should be well under way.
Given that I’m a Pollyanna compared to lots of commenters here, I’d be interested to see if anyone is willing to back Turner on this, say by projecting a decline of 5 per cent or more in world industrial output per capita in (or about) 2015, continuing with a sharply declining trend thereafter. [minor clarifications added, 5/9]
John Quiggin 
“Collapse” is quite a complex phenomenon, and not one that is easily captured by measuring gross outputs (I think this is a weakness of LTG). Network density and resilience, which are not easily measured, are better indicators of decline than output per se. Large complex networks react to lean times by shedding the outlying parts and simplifying their structures, but other parts can carry on as before, or even do better. When gross outputs include a large intangible component (as with GDP) this is even more a problem.
The Classic Maya collapse, for instance, affected the central cities, but “Classic Maya” cities in north Yucatan continued to flourish, and were there flourishing when the Spanish arrived.
In our own case, North and Central Africa, the Sahel, Syria and Iraq have pretty much dropped out. Pakistan is wobbling, as is much of Central America. These are not, in total, insignificant parts of the global network, although they are far from core. A good part of rural Australia and some of the rural US is less well-integrated nationally now than 50 years ago (fewer people, simpler social structures). There are, of course, offsets; coastal China is the big one. Point is, it may only be in hindsight that we recognise a global turning point or a development that hits the core – if we could see it coming we would do something about it, wouldn’t we?
@Ootz
No worries.
I’m also enjoying the discussion – even more now Jack and his hubris have gone – but he did elicit a great summary from Ikon about self-managed socialism.
Out here in the regional areas, there used to be co-operatives and perhaps as things get worse economically, the idea of individuals co-operating for the good of the group could take off again.
@John Quiggin
It’s not my mission in life but it is my mission in the blogosphere to get you to take limits to growth more seriously. My personal opinion is that you place undue emphasis on (relatively orthodox) economic criteria and take too little notice of material biophysical limits. (I might be mistaken will stand corrected if need be.) This not by any means to say that economic criteria are irrelevant. The interaction of the modern scientific, technological, industrial and financial economy with the biosphere is at at once brutal and subtle. And itt is always complex. Innovation, technological progress and substitutional possibilities have had and will have an enormous influence on possibilities. That being said ultimate limits still exist at the physical, biological and biospheric levels.
To talk about your points one by one;
1) “It’s important that global population should stabilise and ultimately decline. Plausible scenarios have this happening around 2050, but the adoption of pro-natalist policies (paging Peter Costello) could stop this.”
We agree on this. To be a little pedantic, pro-natalist policies won’t stop this in the long run. They will just lead to a worse problem later.
(2) “Constraints on the availability of mineral resources aren’t important. In particular, we will have to leave lots of fossil fuels in the ground if we are to stabilise the global climate. No other mineral is in short enough supply to matter.”
Let me start with where we agree. We will indeed have to leave lots of fossil fuels in the ground if we are to stabilise the global climate. I agree now that solar and wind power are viable (providing sufficent EROEI) and scaleable for running a modern, all-electric civilization when combined with many other efficiency measures including everything from more bicycles and less cars to passive design, mass transit and so on. It seems also that moving away from fossil fuels will make enormous and critically necessary savings on fresh water use for cooling. That is another big plus for renewable energies.
I would not go so far as to say “constraints on the availability of mineral resources aren’t important” as a blanket statement. My definition of “minerals” here is elements of the periodic table (and their natural compounds) solid at STP. Plus I would add a few renegades like mercury. It appears for example that iron and aluminium need not be in short supply at least for a very long time. Copper is in increasing short supply but can be and is substituted by glass fibre (silicon) for data transmission and aluminium for electrical transmission. This is a simple example of substition. It is clear that ubiquitous minerals, elements, compounds and gases will never be in short supply globably although some issues like fresh water availability on site or obtainability in a given region can be a real problem. Access to silicon and carbon, for example, will never be a problem. Ditto for oxygen from the atmosphere and sodium and chlorine and maybe sulfates, magnesium, calcium and potassium from seawater. Though one can think of much easier sources of calcium (cheaper to obtain energetically) than seawater.
When we get to the issue of lithium availability and so-called rare earths availability we might be tempted to think here we have found Liebig’s Law of the Minimum in possible operation in terms of limiting an electrical renewable economy.
(3) “With current or clearly foreseeable technology we have sufficient energy resources to supply the needs of a global population of 8-10 billion living at standards comparable to those of the developed world today, and also sufficient resources to feed such a population.”
Energy sufficiency can be assured, I believe, as I laid out above. I am not as confident about the supplies of fresh potable water, irrigation water, fertile soils, wild foods (especially wild fisheries) and farmed foods. Therefore food and water supplies could become a serious problem.
Wild fisheries are collapsing, land availability decreasing, topsoil disappearing and natural fertiliser deposits depleting. Will we need to live on all farmed food, including farmed fish and vast hydroponics combines as well as soil agriculture in future? The challenge of making fertilisers without oils and natural gas will be considerable. Will we need to process, recycle and reapply all human waste as fertiliser? How is this to be done safely and acceptably?
How will farm machinery be powered? Can large agricultural and earth-working machinery be electrified in a practical manner. Of course huge “thethered” mobile electrical machinery can be practical. I remember the Moura dragline. Does it or its like still operate worldwide? I assume so. However, every farming machinery operation and irrigation operation will have to be electrified in like manner (machines “tethered” with power cables). This is eminently feasible in theory but not quick and easy as a global refit of agriculture. Then we come back to minerals availability for the fully electrical economy.
(4) “Continuing improvements in living standards in developed countries are feasible, but they will need to take the form of improved services (including IT and communications) and more leisure rather than greater material throughput.”
I agree if all holds good (more on that later maybe). Plus advances in medicine, health, social care, genetic and biotech plus a mention of issues like equality and social advances.
(5) “Just because all these things are feasible doesn’t mean they will happen. We need urgent action to stabilise the climate, substantial changes in food policy and in the long term the replacement of the current capitalist model with a more sustainable and equitable economy and society.”
I agree. Even if we start doing most things right soon (and we aint started yet) it will be tough.
Conclusion. It seems that you do accept that we must end demographic growth and physical growth in material throughput at some relatively near point in historical terms. Even fifty years is “near” in this sense.
However, where we differ is that I see regions where development and/or local resources are insufficient to “bootstrap” from the current subsistence / oil economy to the new economy required. If the world’s military budget were converted to bootstrap aid for these regions, like MENA, it could be done, However, my realpolitik “spidey senses” tell me this just is not going to happen. More likely, much of our needed conversion capital, financial and natural, will be burned and blown up.
@Ikonoclast
Ikon, I mostly agree with what you’ve said here. Although I will quibble about this:
I think you’ve made an assumption here that those minerals are essential for an electrical renewable economy, and are not substitutable. I think they’re entirely substitutable, and not essential at all. This is the trouble IMHO with using Liebig’s law in reference to economic factors – there are certain things that are non-substitutable when it comes to human biological wellbeing, but when it comes to the inanimate technological economy, very little is genuinely non-substitutable. It’s perfectly possible to envisage an electric-renewable economy that doesn’t require significant quantities of lithium or rare earths. The fact that those materials are currently in demand for batteries and electric motors and generators is neither here nor there. Even absent new technological developments, lithium batteries and rare earth magnets, although nice to have, are not actually required – there are many substitutes.
@Tim Macknay
Many things might be possible in the arena of technology.
“… a new Tel Aviv University solution applies a discovery in nano-technology, based on self-assembled peptide nanotubes, to “green” the optics and electronics industry. Researchers Nadav Amdursky and Prof. Gil Rosenman of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Electrical Engineering say their technology could make flat screen TV production green and can even make medical equipment — like subcutaneous ultrasound devices — more sensitive.”
But as you said, “.. there are certain things that are non-substitutable when it comes to human biological wellbeing,”. Indeed that statement extends to ecological well-being which of course comes back to affect human wellbeing. Nutritious, balanced food and potable water will certainly be the basic limiting factors for humans. Then we need to look at what will limit these items.
We have to effect a changeover / boot-up into an electrical, renewable, stable, sustainable, circular, recycling economy in relatively short order. If we aren’t fullly done by 2040 to 2050 then we are “done” in the colloquial sense. And really we have not even started and its 2014 already. Global CO2 emissions are still rising every year. Limits are waste sink limits as well as resource input limits.
Marxism is self-managed socialism,.
try googling Edvard Kardelj.
@Ikonoclast
Indeed. Ecological and environmental limits to growth are more significant than raw materials-based limits, to my mind.
Capitalists MUST
plus too little notice of social standards
plus too little notice of long-run phenonema
plus too little notice of underlying trends.
Nevermind technology, we ain’t seen nothing yet re digital revolution. My informed guess was 3 years for the doubling of data and knowledge world wide.
Apparently not so. The next mining boom will be digging digital wholes online, which will bring it’s own problems.
That is just one new emerging vector not covered in the classic LtD scenario, which makes it hard to paint an overall timing nor scenario re expected collapse/crash/crumble/deflate/transformation/evolution of the human enterprise.
@ Tim M apparently most commercial generators these days use permanent magnets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_magnet_synchronous_generator
as does the person in the TV ad who sucks up cobwebs at 15,000 rpm using a lightweight vacuum cleaner. Rare earth vs common spider. Generators with wound coils need an externally powered ‘black start’ to magnetize the field.
This week Tesla say they will built a huge factory in Nevada to make half the world’s lithium ion batteries. In my opinion their performance is not yet good enough either for electric cars for the masses or stationary applications for storing renewable energy. Reminds me of the company that spent so much building the world’s biggest blender they went into liquidation.
@Hermit
Ha ha good one
I second Ootz. Great discussion (Jack King aside). Over 150 comments and I am still interested to keep reading as the thread maintains its original topic.
FWIW, my physics-trained inspection of the graphs in LtG update from Turner show pretty much only linear extrapolation of the trends observed in the 1970’s. The important part of any model are the inflection points which require many more data points to accurately nail down.
More important would be a renewed input of the current predictions of known global resources, updated from the inputs used in the 1970’s. Then rerun the model with these updated inputs. Turner appears to have only plotted the known stats against the model without re-calculating the predictions, however flawed the model.
Altering the model to account for new information, such as AGW, would be even better.
I agree with Tim and plaasmatron that the models from LtG haven’t been tested yet, as they are below the inflection point, so their dynamic properties haven’t come into play yet. However I wouldn’t be so quick to pooh-pooh the relevance of the close fit of prediction to data. Predicting pollution, growth and resource stocks 40 years out is not trivial, when you think about all the things that have happened in that time. It appears that the only thing they have got significantly wrong is agriculture (this is an important thing to get wrong). It could be that this is just a natural consequence of averaging over a large number of inputs, but I think it’s still worth noting that it’s a big achievement.
It would be interesting to update their model with the latest data (especially teh agricultural stuff) and see how it changes future predictions.
To Peter T’s point on collapse at the periphery I would add collapse in specific classes. A good example of this is malnutrition in India – there is a growing body of research suggesting that malnutrition in India is now driven by the environmental problem of human feces, that the human gut biome has changed due to the presence of feces in the environment, and people in India cannot obtain sufficient nourishment due to this environmental hazard, even in the presence of sufficient calories. This is a direct consequence of too many people living too close together in poorly managed environments, and is concentrated in the poor. The rich can escape the consequences of early signs of collapse, and the collapse may also be limited then to the poor within both the periphery (India) or the centre (see e.g. the terrible treatment of illegal migrant workers in EUrope, or the increasingly desperate situation of poor people in the UK).
@Hermit
Heh!
@faustusnotes
I think it was Nathan who made the point about the main indicators being below the inflection point, although I do agree with it.
@faustusnotes
(As well as plasmatron, obviously)
you all look the same to me
Predictions of pollution in LtG are problematic. Obviously CO2 has grown more than linearly, and threatens disaster in the long run. For the next 30 years though, in the absence of a non-predictable tipping point, damage is likely to be significant but not enough to have an impact on world population etc as predicted by LtG.
For most other pollutants, the story is much more mixed. In the developed world, water quality and urban air quality have improved massively compared to 1970. The opposite is true in places like Beijing, but now that the government has decided to do something about it (closing coal-fired power stations near cities) the trend is likely to turn around.
So, I don’t think this variable can be counted as a clear success for the LtG projections.
This is more of a set of questions than anything else. I sometimes read Gail the Actuary on her “Our Finite World” blog. Her views are good in parts (IMO) but I have problems now with some of her assertions.
(1) Gail asserts that renewable energy (mainly wind and solar power) and the electrical economy will never work. She never quantifies in detail why it won’t work other than saying the energy profit or EROIE (Energy Resturn on Energy Invested) of wind and solar power is insufficient to run a modern civilisation. I used to agree with her but more recent data have more or less convinced me that wind power can return excellent EROEI figures of up to 20:1 and solar power already is up to something like 6:1 to 10:1.
However, true EROEI figures are very hard to determine because of all the embodied energy in upstream processing, manufacture and transport related to running renewable energy plus of course maintenance. Some sources suggest that an EROEI of about 6:1 is necessary to successfully run a modern civilisation. This would mean of every seven units of energy produced, one is needed to keep the energy system itself running and 6 are available for other purposes.
Gail goes on to assert, or strongly imply, that fossil fuel so subsidises renewable energy (energetically speaking) that a pure renewable energy system could never be self-replicating and self-maintaining as well as supplying a net EROEI to run the rest of the economy. It seems to me that there are a few things Gail does not factor in. One, the electrical economy is a more efficient energy user than the fossil fuel economy. Two, we do waste a lot of energy currently and this waste can be reduced. Three, passive design, good urban design and mass transit can save a great deal of energy. Four, her assumption that transport has to be fossil fuel based is flawed except in the case of air transport.
What bothers me is that the “only fossil fuels can work” argument comes out looking like an excuse for BAU. We might as well burn all the fossil fuels, have a nice life and wreck the climate ever after since nothing else can possibly work.
I counter by saying that in the end only renewable energy will be remain to utilise. Thus we must perforce use renewable energy and accept whatever level of life and civilization that confers. In addition, we know to a high degree of certainty that burning all the fossil fuels (and possibly even triggering large methane clathrate releases) will seriously damage earth’s climate for tens of thousands of years at least.
At the same time, I worry that a variant of Jevon’s Paradox will apply to this whole problem. Even if renewable energy works (positive-enough EROEI) we will just take that energy and use it plus we will keep using all the fossil fuels available too. In other words, it will all fuel growth and as growth is the be-all and end-all of the current system, the current BAU dynamic will just continue… until it can’t. To voluntarily cease using fossil fuels and to accept low growth or no growth would be like putting a fat man with depression, poor impulse control and loss of motivation before a vast free buffet every day. Would he have the self-restraint to turn his back on it day in day out for years on end and go puffing around a walking track instead?
@Ikonoklast
Unfortunately, there a bunch of people who made a negative judgement about renewables ten years ago (one I largely shared at the time) and have been unwilling to revise that judgement despite the spectacular and surprising technical progress we have seen, most obviously in solar PV. Ted Trainer is an even more severe example.
The cost of the silicon in a solar module (the only bit of the process that uses a lot of energy) is now down to around 20c/watt. IIRC, I worked out that the implied EROEI is at least 20 to 1. But people are still going about EROEI as if it is a critical factor, which is obviously not the case for renewable electricity (fuel ethanol is a different story, to be sure).
@John Quiggin
John, I wonder if you can post on water issues either for Australia or the world. Didn’t you say you were an agricultural economist by original training?
The problem you touch on is the issue of delayed feedback. This is the reason, of course, that overshoot can occur. Some, like the Footprint Network, argue that we are in overshoot now. Personally, I agree we are in overshoot. The CO2 greenhouse problem alone demonstrates to a high degree of probability that we are in overshoot. The fresh water issue, on a regional basis, also demonstrates we are already in overshoot. There are many regions in the world where large populations and key agricultural areas are drawing down aquifer water (so called fossil water) much faster than it is being replenished by natural processes.
One can mention the Ogallala Aquifer in the USA, the Texcoco in Mexico, and the aquifer and groundwater stystems of North Africa, the Middle East, India and China. And let us not forget our own Great Artesian Basin which also is being drawn down faster than its recharge rate.
Many rivers, lakes and dams are being exausted around the world. On the other hand, it is hard to see the surface and ground water of Canada being exhausted in the foreseeable future to give a counter example. Than again, Canada is doing a good job (meaning a bad job) of polluting large lakes in the Athabasca oil sands area.
“By 2030, nearly half of the world’s people will be living in areas of acute water shortage, said a report issued ahead of a major conference in Istanbul.
The world needs to act urgently to avoid a global water crisis due to increased population, rising living standards, dietary changes and more biofuels production, the United Nations warned on Thursday.
By 2030, nearly half of the world’s people will be living in areas of acute water shortage, said a report jointly produced by more than two dozen U.N. bodies and issued ahead of a major conference on water to be held in Istanbul next week.” – The report, “Water in a Changing World” made “clear that urgent action is needed if we are to avoid a global water crisis,” said a foreword by Koichiro Matsuura, head of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
@Ikonoclast
Not just an agricultural economist, but a water economist. I’ve worked on the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin for thirty years, on and off. Two points:
First, water problems are local, not global. Every basin has its own problems, and needs its own solutions
Second, in nearly all cases, the problem is not one of absolute water shortage. Rather, it’s that management structures, property rights and so on aren’t working properly
In the case of the MDB, the Basin plan that was produced under the Labor government got pretty close to a sustainable solution (though with a lot of wasteful expenditure). Unfortunately, Abbott looks like ripping it up, so we will probably have to start again
Much the same applies to the Great Artesian Basin, though the blame is more evenly shared
https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/24558751/scrapping-of-government-bore-capping-scheme-wasting-millions-of-litres-of-water-farmers-say/
A fairly recent line of thought is that stored or buffered renewable energy systems have a much reduced EROEI to make them comparable with on-demand energy sources. For example you may need to replace the batteries 3 or 4 times during the life of PV panels. See the abstract of Weisbach et al in
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213000492
Put it this way if batteries were going to save us we’d be seeing clear evidence of it.
The abstract is enough to tell that this paper is garbage. Coal and nuclear aren’t “on demand” sources. Storage should have been included for them, so that they can match their fixed supply to actual variation in demand.
That leaves aside the question of what it means to do an EROEI calculation on a coal-fired power station without counting the coal.
@Hermit
Well, at a personal or rather family level, I have enough solar panels (5.5 kW system nominal) to supply my family home of 4 adults with electric power and to sell enough power to the grid to supply part (0.5 to 0.66) of another household like mine. We also have a solar evacuated tube hot water system. We are not profiligate power users but we don’t stint either. While we use heating and air-con in one room only and rarely at that, we have 4 computers and 2 flatscreens plus all the usual suspects; dishwasher, 1 fridge/freezer, washing machine, microwave, cooktop, oven, clothes dryer (used rarely) and a biocycle waste treatment unit with electric pumps. No pool though.
We have a property pole that helps bring in (and send out) the power. If that property pole becomes unsafe (whiteants, rot) then the cost of replacing it might convince me to put in batteries and go off-grid at least after about 2024 when my feed-in tariff bonus deal ends (I think). Thus, if it becomes economic for a significant number of households to do that, and if the material supplies for batteries are sustainable, then this would demonstrate that renewable plus batteries does in fact work and make a difference.
I also expect the price of privatised grid power to keep rising at the current ridiculous rate. This only strengthens the possibility that I will go off-grid post 2024 and say “two to the Valley” to the private monopoly power-grid price gougers.
It’s no good saying renewables won’t work. They have to work or we have to solve the fusion power generation issue safely which latter I think is pretty unlikely. So it’s pretty much develop renewables and live with whatever is feasible and sustainable. Fission is only another stop-gap and due to run out of fuel in 2050 at a once-through or twice-through fuel cycle.
Fission without subsdies is less economic and far less safe than renewables. So you can forget about fission. And mass commercial breeder reactors are still a pipe dream. Put it this way, if fission was going to save us we’d be seeing clear evidence of it by now. This statement is far more applicable to old fission rather than new solar/wind plus energy storage technology. Fission has had 60 odd years to prove itself without massive subsidies, massive accidents and massive spent fuel storage problems and it aint done so yet.
A wag in the reactor design industry said, oh sure, we will be saved by these new reactor designs which are ink-cooled, paper moderated and hot-air fueled.
@John Quiggin
How did you infer “what it means to do an EROEI calculation on a coal-fired power station without counting the coal” from the abstract?
Was it from the statement – “The strict exergy concept with no “primary energy weighting”, updated material databases, and updated technical procedures make it possible to directly compare the overall efficiency of those power plants on a uniform mathematical and physical basis.”? Or did you find a longer abstract that I did?
The interesting thing is, are they counting the coal mine and all down stream (in)efficiency as well? It costs energy to mine coal. It costs energy to truck it or conveyor it if the power station is close to the coal mine. It costs energy to pulverize coal for coal-bed burning. It costs energy to trap flue ashes even if you are not trapping CO2. It costs energy to sell or dispose of flue ash. And as you said it costs and/or wastes energy to buffer coal generators with quicker demand generators like gas generators or ese they have to waste power or store it, with losses, maybe with pumped hydro.
If people in the suburbs opt for batteries there are several dangers. When the generous FiTs end in the next few years it’s on the cards that the daily grid connection fee will increase. For a shopping mall size business in Qld that is now $537. Secondly time-of-use peak grid rates may escalate to perhaps over $1 retail per kwh in late afternoon heat waves and cold snaps. Already the NEM is under pressure to increase the wholesale peak spot price which was a staggering $12.50 per kwh.
Other dangers include not having the cash to do an $8k battery replacement. They say the standard quarter acre house block is shrinking. A model green citizen surely has rainwater tanks, a vegie garden and perhaps now a childproof battery shed for anything bigger than 10 kwh storage. I’m thinking bulky nickel-iron batteries to see me through to the old folks home since I have the space for a dedicated shed. However those around me will be doing it harder so maybe I need a gun instead to ward them off.
When the big power companies start installing batteries on customer premises for no upfront cash we’ll know the idea has legs.
@Ikonoclast
I inferred from the statement that EROEI > 1, which obviously can’t be true if the energy embodied in the coal is counted.
John, you mentioned 5 points on your main views on the limits to growth earlier. I thought I’d just give my own thoughts on those points in case the products of my thought processes are of interest to anyone:
(1) It seems very likely to me that world population will peak below 10 billion at around or beyond 2050. Reasons why I think this include continuing urbanisation, decent economic growth in many developing countries, and decreased oppression of women. Fewer governments in the world now possesss the power to (successfully) oppress women and reactionary groups opposing this trend aren’t showing a lot of success in boosting populations. (Quite the opposite, really.) I also think improving information technology will assist with the education and empowerment of women (and men). In developed countries pro-natalist policies only appear to have limited effects and are easily wiped out by things such as cuts to benefits for unemployed young people or increases in the cost of education. It is possible that world population will peak at below nine billion, although I admit I would be surprised if that happened. A large and currently unexpected increase in life expectancies would increase peak population, but that would be wonderful.
(2) I agree there is no plausible situation in which a mineral shortage can do more than shave economic growth this century. And asking people to provide plausible examples just seems to upset them. There are also people who seem to think reduced ability to drive a V6 or reduced ability to fly directly equates to massive population die off. It doesn’t. Not that I think we will suffer any real reduction in the ease with which we transport ourselves. Given the current low cost of substitution and their huge externalities, cutting fossil fuel use looks like economic win as it will result in lower energy prices, reduced health costs, and a less unstable climate.
(3) Supplying energy to everyone in the world is now clearly trivially easy. Solar may already be installed for under $1 US a watt in China. (Once I have clear information that this is the case I am having a $1 party. You are all invited. The cover charge is $1.) And wind power is also very cheap compared to fossil fuels with any even part way realistic accounting of externalities. Some people seem unduly worried about what will supply the last 10% of grid power, but I don’t really care. The answer will become clear as we increase the penetration of renewables over the next few years.
Food may be a problem if oil prices go up as more agricultural production may go into biofuel. This is one reason why I am in favour of strict fuel efficiency standards and sensible subsidies for electric cars. It’s a hedge against starvation amongst people who are a step above the poorest of the poor. (The poorest of the poor grow their own food and if they aren’t kicked off their land benefit from things like biofuels pushing up agricultural prices.) Reducing oil use in ground transport makes more oil available for things such as flight. With regards to CO2 mitigation it requires less agricultural output to burn oil and use agricuture to remove and sequester the CO2 released than it does to produce biofuels.
On the bright side, the world can produce enough food to feed everyone. The lower our peak population and the less we accelerate climate change, the more optimistic I will be about this.
(4) A lot of improvement in standards of living in developed countries will come from things such as improved information and medical technology. And there is a huge amount of room for efficiency improvements in material standards. Eg. an electric car is far more efficient than an internal combustion engine car and one autonomous taxi per 20 people is far more efficient than one private car per 2 people. It takes less resources to watch TV through a pair of glasses than on a 50 or 100 inch screen.
(5) I am optimistic about technology allowing us to eliminate most or all fossil fuel use and stabilize or eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions, but the fact that vested interests and ideologues have delayed sensible action on climate by about 20 years has made me pessimistic about humanity’s ability to safely survive future threats. We can’t afford a 20 year delay in a sensible response to the first person to make weaponised ebola in her garage. Our safety depends upon things such as AI programs going through internet data looking for people making nerve gas or viruses in their garden sheds. However, effective policing requires the consent of the policed and so far no government appears interested in obtaining that. Technologies that protect us such as wind and solar power get demonised by governments because they threaten vested interests and ideology, while people are forced to oppose what should be sensible public health measures so we don’t end up living in an antipodean version of Putin’s Russia. I just hope that improving AI ends up heading towards the best case scenarios, because some of those worst case ones are really nasty.
JQ, just a quibble about the way you are approaching the concept of collapse in comments above. You say re: water…
I think this rather misses the point. Except in the most extreme of cases, people claiming that there is a risk of collapse usually do so from the perspective of a failure of management, property rights etc. i.e. they argue that we *could* avoid collapse, but the political and social changes required won’t happen because of the dynamics of a collapse. The primary dynamic is that we don’t see the peak until it is already on us or past us, so we are too late to adapt. This is why responding cautiously and favourably – and early – to predictions of collapse is important, because the changes required need to occur long before the observable effects.
This is most obvious in the current drought in California. I was there in February, at the end of a winter of failed rains, and people were still using sprinklers on the lawn, single full flush toilets, etc. WTFUWT just put up a post laughing about the drought, even though the author of that sad site lives in Chico, where the local dam has fallen to near-empty in three years. California looks like it is well past the peak level of water availability, but even the people living right next to the empty dams can’t see it. The adaptation of management structures, property rights etc. that you blithely present as a caveat on collapse are a core part of the argument.
To back up the points others have made on flow vs. stock, Ugo Bardi has a new post up about gold depletion that points out the problem is not just stock depletion, but the skyrocketing costs of accessing the remaining stocks. Check out the stats for those monster trucks! (And while you’re there, tell me how it is possible for a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions in gold mining to zero!)
It’s a little past noon in South Australia and rooftop solar is currently supplying about 31% of total electricity use. It’s warming up, so I expect the percentage to be higher tomorrow.
@Hermit
If I opt for battery power storage I will do so on a basic cost-benefit analysis. There is no point in me doing it yet. However, at or about 2024, when my grid feed-in subsidy ends I will look at my options.
(1) If property pole replacement and/or high grid connection fees are in the offing at that point, I strongly suspect that getting batteries and going off-grid will be economical for me. By that time I will be part of a 2 person household most likely and the spare power that I used to export to the grid plus what our two adult offspring currently use will nicely go to charge the electric car I expect to have by then.
(2) If property pole replacement and high grid connection fees don’t become an issue, I might still install batteries and thus feed/use batteries and feed/use the grid of a needs/costs basis. Such systems can be programmed to feed/use on a costs basis. Additionally, batteries will insure me against balackouts and brownouts. Currently anti-islanding means my inverter shuts down in a blackout so no power even in day time. But with batteries I can be anti-islanded with respect to the grid but still with power from batteries/panals.
So, grid conncetion costs are not unavoidable to me. If they become prohibitive, I go off-grid. If they stay reasonable, I still do a cost/benefit analysis on whether I go off-grid or not.
Finally, isn’t it strange that many middle class people think it standard to buy a new $30,000 car every 8 years or so and probably dropping $8,000 in depreciation in the first two years. Yet, you are suggesting they baulk at buying $8,000 battery packs every 8 years or so. Heck, just buy a good second hand car and the savings pay for you battery pack. It’s really no big deal.
@John Quiggin
LOL, I didn’t look at it that way. However, is not the standard way of doing EROEI comparisons to count the energy costs to our economy? The embedded energy in coal and the energy in sunshine and wind come free to our human economy in both financial and energy cost terms. What does cost us energy (to get more net useable energy hoipefully ) is harnessing part of the energy embedded in coal, light and wind. Calculating in that manner does give above 1 ratios for EROEIs.
I am still highly doubtful that coal EROEIs (for example) could be much better than wind IF there was a way of accounting for, or better still preventing, negative externalities. Thus the relevant EROEI for a coal plant would be the result for a full CCS cycle along with the coal plant. Add that in and it’s London to a brick that wind would greatly outperform coal.
@ Ikon the battery will be rooted after 7-8 years of heavy use but the car could last 20+ years if well maintained. Affordable petrol is another issue. The threat of voluntary disconnection may be a check against power companies getting greedy. I note some advocate getting a petrol or diesel generator if the battery gives out after a few days of rain. Apart from the hypocrisy of claiming to be low carbon the noise in the suburbs could be annoying. I suggest the criminal code be amended so that taking a sledgehammer to your neighbour’s generator after 10 pm is not frowned upon by the police.
Yes the expiry of FiTs is a sleeper issue. Mine runs out in 2019 so a handy timeline for near term energy issues is… 2015 east Australian gas price doubles, 2018 US fracking boom wanes, 2019 Australian solar FiT ceases for many.
@faustusnotes
Faust, you asked John how it is possible for a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions in gold mining to zero. I already explained that to you. Did you forget? Anyway, if you want a real world example I suggest you look at on grid gold mines in Tasmania that produce gold using electrically operated equipment that is more or less entirely powered by renewables.
JQ, fuel ethanol is not a different story at all.I did a lot of practical research in this area some years ago. Australia is, possibly, the most efficient cane ethanol producer in the world. We get between 9000 and 12500 litres per hectare, the difference being in how much effort the farmer wants to apply in improving his returns. Brazil typically gets 7500 litres per hectare (old information may have changed).
The argument on ethanol is usually confused with the extreme denialist notion that each alternative energy techmology must be a complete solution to energy needs or else it is a failure.
My postion on this is to look 30 years ahead at how the sustainable future can realistically be powered, and the future is extremely attractive. From a personal transport perspective I see hybride plug in electric vehicles with an ever larger electric storage capacity and an ever smaller range extender (ICE). Even today’s PHEV formula is sufficient to demolish CO2 emissions for city dwelling commuters coupled with 6kw pv rooftop power, solar water heating, and gas cooking. The
Ronald, the linked article explicitly states that it’s not possible to link these gold mines to the grid. Did you read it? It also talks about the use of lime in processing the ore. It’s an interesting take on multiple challenging aspects of the mineral industry.
@faustusnotes
I think we are in furious agreement on this. My point (on both water and climate change) is not that there will be no collapse, but that there need not be and that preventing it does not imply a drastic reduction in living standards. If you read what I’ve written about the MDB, I don’t think “blithe” is an accurate summary. Here’s my signoff
https://johnquiggin.com/2011/06/03/giving-up-on-the-murray-darling-basin/
The…….50klm electric only range of the present formula (Audi, VW, Mitsubishi) offers the prospect of fossil fuel consumption for such vehicles reducing to as little as 10% of bau fueling of equivalent petrol only vehicles. In that framework ethanol and bio diesel fuelling for the beyond electric range means that biofuels can reduce petrol needs to very little for the nation.
I guess what I’m trying to say, John, is that you’re looking at it from an economic theory perspective – that is, there are no hardwired biological or physical reasons why it shoudl happen. But most theorists predicting collapse don’t care about this Simonist approach. Rather, they point out that human society is not changing fast enough to respond to the coming problems, and the overlay of systemic failure is more important than the ideological point that there “need not be” a collapse.
The Simonist approach pooh-poohs realistic predictions of collapse by pointing out that in theory collapse can be avoided – while in practice California, for example, is lurching towards a water shortage disaster. Just as Ronald pooh-poohs my concerns about zero carbon by pointing out that theoretically it can be achieved. I’m an empiricist – I look for evidence of what is happening and will happen, not what should happen. I see no evidence that the “need not” claims are relevant to the future of the earth.
Rather than saying there “need not be” a collapse, we should instead be asking ourselves: what will happen if two or three (or five) years from now the tech giants – Apple, Google, Facebook, and much of silicon valley – run out of water? What happens if Los Angeles runs out of water?
Faust, we have off grid mines in Australia currently using both wind and solar energy. And in another comment thread I specifically mentioned carbon neutral and carbon negative cement making. Maybe I didn’t mention that involves lime production? Cement making involes lime production. And no, I didn’t read the linked to article because it would have been a waste of my time and I haven’t changed my mind about that. No, wait, what do they need the lime for? For shoring up, I presume. I will read it… Nope, no mention of how the lime is used. A waste of time. There is no need for electricity used to come form fossil fuels. The heating of refractory ores only requires a heat source and that heat source does not have to be fossil fuels. (I can send you a photo of a solar powered oven if you like.) Also, the carbon the cyanide used in gold extraction tends to end up as solid cyanide compounds, so no problem there. (Well, with some of the compounds you may have a problem if you respire.) Here in Australia off grid mines are using increasing amounts of solar power because its cheaper than diesel and that’s without a carbon price. If they had to pay a carbon price as well it would hasten the shift to renewables. Chile currently has no carbon price, although they are working on it, and they have gone in for solar powered mines. Oh, and by the way, Faust, if you go searching for information on the Henty gold mine in Tasmania, then for the love of god be careful about your spelling when you type that in.
The term “Simonist” is unfamiliar to me, and Google doesn’t help.
More generally, it seems to me that your argument is self-defeating. If you don’t think we will have the collective wit to deal with easily manageable problems like water supply, what is the point making plans to respond to the collapse of the world as we know it (unless your plans involve a personal bunker)
John Quiggin :
the problem is not one of absolute water shortage. Rather, it’s that management structures, property rights and so on aren’t working properly
This approach will not address or resolve the problem.
So-called “management structures”, “property rights”, and government processes ARE operating “properly” based on the needs of Capital.
You only need desalination plants after growth in need for water has reached its limits.
So instead of high-cost desalination plants why not zero population growth? Simply because capital requires exponential feedstock and the the “proper management” of public affairs – taxes, tariffs, wages, land rights, regulations – to achieve this.
Ronald, the company that operates Henty gold mine also operates a huge gold mine in Papua New Guinea. I don’t see evidence it uses off-grid solar for any of its operations there, do you have any? Similarly Newmont, which is mentioned in the article I linked to (btw it’s cute you consider Ugo Bardi to be a waste of your time to read), owns the Batu Hijau mine in Indonesia. It produces 20 times as much gold as Henty gold mine, and uses large haul trucks. Do you think it is likely to be solar-powered any time soon? When do you think PNG is going to introduce a carbon tax?
I use “Simonist” to refer to the belief propagated by that idiot Simon who “won” the argument with Paul Ehrlich, that we will always be able to find new resources and infinite growth is fine, there is no biological limit, etc. It needs to be distinguished from Simonism, which is the trade in body parts of saints (or is that Simonianism? Anyhoo).
I don’t think my argument is self-defeating. My goal here is to try and encourage people like you to reject your Simonist ideals, so that you respond earlier to the threat of collapse. For example, if you were take this report on LtG’s predictive powers more seriously, you would be less likely to claim that everything’s fine because someone will find a solution that no one is looking for. Until people like you (i.e. people with some kind of influence) take seriously the possibility that we aren’t doing enough, then your Simonist dreams will never see the light of day. It’s a paradox, I know, but you can handle it!
@BilB
So what is stopping Brazil achieving…
between 9000 and 12500 litres per hectare,
climate, land, cost, or intellectual property rights?
It is more likely less irrigation and more basic farming practices. The information is some 7 years old so the status may well have changed.
Faust, you might need to find a different word. Simony is paying money to get into heaven. Or more specifically the selling of church offices for dosh.
Faust, are you seriously arguing that that a carbon price can’t eliminate emissions in gold mining because many gold mines don’t have carbon prices? ‘Cause if it is, I think there might be a flaw in that somewhere.