Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Limits to Growth was Wrong

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 08 May 2013, 19:53:33

Expanding the Planet's Limits

This is part two of a two-part series on the limits of human economic growth on planet Earth. Part one details some of the environmental and natural resource challenges we’re up against. Here, we look at the ultimate size of the resource pool and solutions to our problems.


Growing the Pie

In Part One of this series I showed you that we’re up against incredible challenges: feeding a world with a rapidly growing appetite, the continuing loss of the world’s precious forests, the ongoing collapse of fish species in the oceans, the rapid depletion of our fresh water resources, and the over-arching threat of climate change, which makes all others far worse. Those trends point towards a dystopian, Elysium-like future.

Ending growth isn’t a realistic option to deal with that. Billions of people in the developing world want access to more resources, deserve those resources as much as those of us in the rich world do, and need them in order to rise out of poverty. Growth won’t end without a struggle. And that struggle could turn violent, as it has in the past.

There’s only one acceptable way out of our current predicament. And that is to grow the total pie of resources available to the world’s inhabitants. And a close look at the numbers and at the human history of innovation suggests this is possible.



So we’re at a crucial point in human history – a race between destruction and creation. On the one side, we have the pace at which we’re consuming finite resources and warming and polluting the planet – a trend with disastrous consequences should it continue unchecked. On the other side, we have our vigorous progress in innovating to tap more efficiently and cleanly into a truly enormous supply of fundamental natural resources the planet provides.

Are we on track to win this race?

That’s not at all clear. Consider, for a moment, climate and energy. Multiple groups have proposed plans by which the world could be powered almost entirely by renewable energy by 2050, or, in the most ambitious plans, by 2030.

Yet even as those plans are articulated, worldwide CO2 emissions are rising, not falling. In 2012, the planet as a whole emitted a record-breaking 35.6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. And the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is surging along with our annual emissions. In 2012, atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose by the largest amount in 15 years to a new level of 395 ppm, most of the way to the 450ppm that climate scientists have articulated as the threshold for dangerous warming.

The fundamental driver here is economics. Consumers, businesses, and industry want energy. They need energy. That’s true everywhere in the world. And they will buy whatever sort of energy is cheapest. Indeed, if a new source of energy is sufficiently cheaper than the old, consumers will switch their energy consumption from the old to the new.

If we want to win the race against climate change, one thing matters more than all others: make renewable energy (including storage) cheap. Dirt cheap. And do it fast.

How do we do that? Fundamentally, we need to increase the pace of innovation. And there are two clear strategies to do so.

The first is to invest more in clean energy R&D. In 2012, the US suffered $100 billion in damage from the climate-linked disasters of Hurricane Sandy and the still-ongoing drought. Yet we spent only $5 billion on clean energy R&D, an amount that’s roughly half of what we spent in the 1980s. It’s also a small fraction of the $30 billion the US spends each year on medical research and the $80 billion the US spends each year on defense R&D. Yet in a very real sense, clean energy R&D is an investment in both future health and in national security. Bill Gates proposed last year that this amount should be roughly tripled to $16 billion. That’s a fine start.

The second is to be more inclusive in our cost accounting. The market is a brilliant algorithm that does a masterful job of allocating resources and driving incentives – so long as costs are fully transparent to it. But sometimes, a cost is completely missing from the books – missing in such a way that the market can’t see it.


io9
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby Ibon » Wed 08 May 2013, 20:35:35

Graeme wrote:Expanding the Planet's Limits

Ending growth isn’t a realistic option to deal with that. Billions of people in the developing world want access to more resources, deserve those resources as much as those of us in the rich world do, and need them in order to rise out of poverty. Growth won’t end without a struggle. And that struggle could turn violent, as it has in the past.


When I read this kind of sentiment I sometimes secretly support the growing disparity between rich and poor as a way to accelerate the culling of the human herd along with the help we will get from the Overshoot Predator.

To think that 7 or 9 billion of us, rich and poor alike DESERVE those resources is a level of hubris that will probably never be mitigated without the help of external events.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Wed 08 May 2013, 20:54:44

The more energy available, the cheaper it is, the more people are able to rape the planet. Ecocide was going on before combustion engines came about, deforestation in Europe was by axe and animal labor. But the acceleration of deforestation globally has been driven by cheap and abundant mechanized means- chainsaws, bulldozers, sawmills. Equally driven by market forces, demand for forest products, conversion of forest land to palm oil and beef- dairy production. More cheap and abundant energy sources means more industrial farming, fishing, logging and ecocide in general. The best thing for the environment is for energy to become very expensive, humans to quit breeding like rabbits, industry brought back to a minimum, war becoming redundant. A whole new imperative is necessary, and this article doesn't even go close to touching it.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 08 May 2013, 20:58:32

On the positive side, I saw this the other day.

Universal Energy Access by 2030 for 65-86 billion per year

Over 20% of the world's population still lives without electric lighting, and about 40% do not own a television. Despite increasing rhetoric on the need to improve access to clean-burning fuels and electricity globally, the number of households depending on solid fuels is increasing and the number of new electricity connections in sub-Saharan Africa is outpaced by population growth.

A new paper in Environmental Research Letters looks at achieving universal energy access.

I had propose to accelerate universal energy access by focusing on using solar power and low energy light and devices. I was looking at providing basic services using about 100 kWh per year and doing a lot in 10 years.

By 2017-2020, the $20 per person could provide lighting and electrical charging and basic electrical needs for every person in the world. 50 watts of solar that generates for 6 hours of daylight. About 100 kWh per year. They will need a battery or cheap energy storage for the home or for the community. For the community they will need a cheap microgrid. Cheap storage at $100 per kWh seems likely to become available.

$30 billion to provide $20 of LED lighting and solar power to the 1.5 billion who would not have basic electrification through other means.

Fairly full featured smartphones cost under $100 in China now. By 2017, a $20 smartphone will be more capable that that $100 phone now.

It would be about $60 billion would provide LED lighting, 50 watts of solar power, and smartphones for the people in world without electricity now. Those people are spending about $36 billion per year on kerosene.

Having light, solar power and smartphones will accelerate the rise out of poverty for these people.

Increasing the electricity to 100 watts (about 200 kWh per year)then it would be very easy to have boiled and safe water. Increasing to 200 watts (about 400 kWh per year) would cost $400 or less now and in five years would cost about $200 for a fairly robust and durable solar power generation system.

The clean cooking system cost about $100 now.

Just focusing on cheap solar generation ($40 for a 100 watts system in 3 years), cheap batteries ($100 per kWh, spend $50 for a 0.5 kWh system), LED lights ($20) and a smoke free cooker ($100). $170 for each person. For 1 billion people it would be a one time cost of $170 billion.

My approach would cost at least 5 times less than the plan in the Environmental Research Letters.



A lack of access to modern energy impacts health and welfare and impedes development for billions of people. Growing concern about these impacts has mobilized the international community to set new targets for universal modern energy access. However, analyses exploring pathways to achieve these targets and quantifying the potential costs and benefits are limited. Here, we use two modelling frameworks to analyse investments and consequences of achieving total rural electrification and universal access to clean-combusting cooking fuels and stoves by 2030. Our analysis indicates that these targets can be achieved with additional investment of (2005 basis US$] 65–86 billion per year until 2030 combined with dedicated policies. Only a combination of policies that lowers costs for modern cooking fuels and stoves, along with more rapid electrification, can enable the realization of these goals. Our results demonstrate the critical importance of accounting for varying demands and affordability across heterogeneous household groups in both analysis and policy setting. While the investments required are significant, improved access to modern cooking fuels alone can avert between 0.6 and 1.8 million premature deaths annually in 2030 and enhance wellbeing substantially.


nextbigfuture
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Wed 08 May 2013, 21:14:50

Access to smart phones and TV, brilliant. Going off on a slight tangent- access to MSM globally contributes to what I believe is probably the next major world crisis- refugees. The first world is facing an ever growing tide of desperate people trying to get in, by any means possible. Giving people smart phones and TV won't solve any of the core problems they are running from- rampant corruption, despotism, environmental degradation and competition for scarce primary resources. Besides not solving any of these, they give promotion to the Shangri-La view of the west. At the same time as having more than enough people to collapse the first world to the level of the third, we have the bleeding heart lobby promoting open borders. Open borders or not, eventually the way things are going, nothing will stop the tide of people flooding from the third towards the first world. There is no grasp at all of the limits to first world as haven to the downtrodden, simply a cargo cult mentality extended to economic migration to the source of the cargo.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 08 May 2013, 21:38:03

The second article was about universal energy access. Climate change is a separate issue, which can of course by partly 'solved' by reducing soot from cooking stoves, and preventing destruction of forests. Forests are used for fuel and sequestering CO2. It's the first world who will have the responsibility for 'solving' climate change, along with fast-developing countries like India and China.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Wed 08 May 2013, 21:54:45

That's my point, the first world is going to be so busy dealing with mass migration, AGW and ecology won't get any air. Universal access to basic communications technology won't change the fact that almost everyone in the third world has given up on ever fixing up their own problems and dreams of going to the 'west'; if anything this technology increases this motive.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 08 May 2013, 22:27:57

Guess which country is most sought after?

Rich Chinese want to buy happiness -- by emigrating

At 49, Wang Zeqiang has achieved the Chinese equivalent of the American dream. Raised in the cornfields of eastern China's Shandong province, he founded an auto parts business that today has several dozen employees. He has two houses, two cars and, because he's rich enough to pay the fines for defying the country's family planning policy, two children.

Now, all that is missing — what he covets most — is a foreign passport.

"In China, there is so much pressure," said Wang, who recently hired a consulting firm to advise him on his first choice, Australia. He hasn't been there yet, but he's been surfing the Internet and likes what he sees: blue skies, open spaces. "I want to live a relaxed, happy life."

The new Chinese emigres have little in common with earlier waves of unskilled laborers or political exiles. They're not going abroad for economic opportunity — they're already wildly successful — or political activism, but for a quality of life that money can't buy in China.

A recent poll of Chinese with a net worth of more than 10 million yuan ($1.6 million) found that 16% had obtained foreign residency and that an additional 44% were planning to emigrate. Many cite a polluted atmosphere, and not just in the air they breathe: endemic corruption, a shaky political system, tainted products and poor medical care, among other problems.

The exodus of the middle and upper classes is an embarrassment to the government, with possibly serious economic implications because the emigres are taking with them money and skills. In an attempt to prevent capital flight, Chinese laws limit people from taking more than $50,000 a year out of the country, but it is easy enough to get around the restrictions.


latimes
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Wed 08 May 2013, 23:03:59

Yep, there has been a boom in Chinese migration to Australia.

CHINA has become Australia's biggest source of migrants, for the first time eclipsing the traditional main points of origin, New Zealand and Britain.

The latest migration figures show a record 6350 settlers arrived from mainland China in the four months to October, more than the 5800 who arrived from Britain and the 4740 who came from New Zealand.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/china-no ... -kffd.html

On top of that we have had over 30,000 people in boat arrivals this year, nearly all claiming asylum- refugee status. This is causing a political shit storm here. The average 'refugee' pays about $10,000 for a ticket on an illegal boat- enough to buy a house and start a business back where they came from. Meanwhile the average African refugee has waited 10-15 years in a camp before being allocated a position. Still a drop in the ocean compared to the USA and Europe, but obviously the thin edge of an ever growing wedge.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby SilentRunning » Sun 12 May 2013, 01:34:16

In the race between creation and destruction - destruction is winning every battle - and is supported by the biggest business and media conglomerates.

The human race is completely doomed.
Send more Cornicopians!
The last ones were delicious!!! :-)
User avatar
SilentRunning
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri 27 Mar 2009, 23:46:50
Location: Northeastern North America

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 13 May 2013, 04:57:21

Yes, unfortunately access to electricity usually translates primarily to access to high tech 'communication' and that of course translates into exposure to millions of advertizements for the most glamorized, romanticized lifestyle the world has ever witnessed--the high-consumption life style.

Now that we know that modern human civilization is primarily a force of global annihilation, the goal of all who have eyes, ears, a brain, and a heart is clearly to limit it not to expand it.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Mon 13 May 2013, 06:07:30

Worse than promoting actual reality in the west, the Hollywood version is mostly highly sanitized. How many beggars are there in US cities these days? How many are shown on TV?
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Expanding the Planet's Limits

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 13 May 2013, 12:20:41

Related: biocapacity in light of footprint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Limits to Growth was Wrong

Unread postby TheAntiDoomer » Sun 30 Jun 2013, 18:31:29

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/06/limits ... g.html?m=1

The authors of The Limits to Growth predicted that before 2013, the world would have run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc. Oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively; today, reserves of both are larger than they were in 1970, although we consume dramatically more. Within the past six years, shale gas alone has doubled potential gas resources in the United States and halved the price.
"The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound.That’s why Darwin will always be right, and Malthus will always be wrong.” -K.R. Sridhar


Do I make you Corny? :)

"expect 8$ gas on 08/08/08" - Prognosticator
User avatar
TheAntiDoomer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Limits to Growth was Wrong

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 30 Jun 2013, 23:09:44

Unfortunately, the problem worked both ways, with several predicting decades ago that we'd be entering a "space age" by now together with points that oil prices would drop to less than $30 a barrel due to extensive increases in conventional production. None of these things happened, either.

What we do have is something in between: high oil and food prices, chronic unemployment, one economic crash after another, problems concerning global warming that should be taking place decades from now, and more conflict, both internal (rallies in Europe, the Arab Spring, major protests in Turkey, Brazil, and Egypt) and external (attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan, collapse for Libya and Syria, saber-rattling in Asia, etc.).
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Limits to Growth was Wrong

Unread postby thylacine » Mon 01 Jul 2013, 00:34:44

A while back I came across a Comparison of Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of Reality:
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf

The report had come out of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) - not an organisation usually noted for shooting from the hip or making outlandish claims.

The author had taken publicly available data for the period 1970-2000 and had fed it into the LtG models. His conclusion was:

"As shown, the observed historical data for 1970-2000 most closely matches the simulated results of the LtG "standard run" scenario for almost all the outputs reported; this scenario results in global collapse before the middle of this century."


Based on this review by CSIRO, LtG stands up quite well and not surprisingly we've followed the Standard Model - given that we've spent the last few decades following a Business as Usual growth/consumption mode of existence.

We'll never run out of metals, but every year the "reserves" get lower in grade, or deeper, or more remote, or constrained by sovereign risk or environmental issues and the ability to make a decent return on investment gets harder and harder.
User avatar
thylacine
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu 19 Jan 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Limits to Growth was Wrong

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 01 Jul 2013, 00:46:26

TheAntiDoomer wrote:http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/06/limits-to-growth-was-wrong.html?m=1

The authors of The Limits to Growth predicted that before 2013, the world would have run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc. Oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively
Did they say we would "run out"? What did they actually say?
:roll:
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Limits to Growth was Wrong

Unread postby Palpatine » Mon 01 Jul 2013, 01:12:46

ralfy wrote:Unfortunately, the problem worked both ways, with several predicting decades ago that we'd be entering a "space age" by now .


We are. This is SpaceX. Probably the coolest company on the planet with the stuff they are doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujX6CuRELFE

Mar 14, 2013 - Uploaded by spacexchannel
SpaceX designs, manufactures, and launches the world's most advanced rockets and ...

Another amazing technology SpaceX is working on is making rockets reusable. That would lower the cost per pound of reaching orbit by a factor of 10.

Vertical takeoff and landing of a rocket. The most recent test was to 250 meters, hovered, this landed. Later this year they are going to try it with a full sized rocket after it delivers its satellite payload to orbit. They are going to attempt a soft landing over water.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxiK7K28PU

This stuff will inspire you. Watch a few Elon Musk video interviews on YouTube. Amazing stuff.
Palpatine
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun 30 Jun 2013, 01:17:22

Re: Limits to Growth was Wrong

Unread postby agramante » Mon 01 Jul 2013, 03:57:46

Keith-

"The Limits to Growth" said nothing of the sort, that we would run out of resources by the early 21st century. That's one of the oldest fallacies about this book pushed by its opponents. When someone uses it, it's a dead giveaway that they either haven't read the book or have misunderstood it, willfully or otherwise. Forbes, unsurprisingly, has run a series of articles trumpeting their failure to understand it at all.

The many graphs showing resource depletion are NOT predictions--that point is repeatedly stressed within the book--but rather, extrapolations based on 1970 reserves and consumption rates. The writers explicitly allow that improvements in extraction technology and discovery of new resources are likely. In fact, a number of scenarios in the book involve doubling the known resource base.

The closest thing to a prediction concerning resource availability is the following statement on page 66: "Given present resource consumption rates and the projected increase in these rates, the great majority of the currently important nonrenewable resources will be extremely costly 100 years from now." Not exactly the chicken little scenario the book's detractors try to paint.

The main argument of The Limits to Growth is not to show that we were sure to run out of stuff in 30 to 40 years. It was to model system dynamics, where resources in general are finite. Several of their model runs include doubling, or more, the available resources. One run (described on page 136) even discounts the notion of finite raw materials at all! And still their model showed peak-and-decline global economic dynamics--the only difference was, how many decades into the 21st century this would occur.

Unlimited Run.jpg


It's a fascinating book, absolutely worth a read or three.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
agramante
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri 31 May 2013, 23:06:39

Re: Limits to Growth was Wrong

Unread postby Pops » Mon 01 Jul 2013, 08:22:51

This is a great rant from the comments, let's call it

I forgot to take the medicine today
oacervate • 4 days ago −
The Title [Limits to Growth was Wrong] is so flawed you could laugh about it but I forgot to take the medicine today. The days go on with regularity over and over, one day indistinguishable from the next. People write unsupported comments as if they were on to it. But they are not. They are not on to it. they think they are on to it. But they are not. Inanity has followed me all of my life. Everywhere, In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. i'm gods inane man. Its like I'm trapped in a Robert De Niro movie. A serious one, not the later ones where he's gone all sappy.

I saw a man investigating a plane crash. He said "Look [I was looking], this plane crashed because it ran out of fuel. The reason it ran out of fuel? A new employee hadn't been trained to ensure the fuel flowed properly. The flight crew were distracted by an incident in the passenger cabin and didn't check the level. And the emergency low fuel alarm failed to sound because the eco-friendly biodegradable wiring insulation had been chewed on by vermin before it was installed. Disasters don't usually have a single cause. They happen when a lot of little accidents accumulate over time; sometimes they happen all at once. The result's the same...BANG." (i made this up)

A lot of little accidents are happening right now. We can't restrain our numbers, like yeast we MUST consume all the sugar until either it is gone or the waste becomes toxic. We can't cut ourselves loose from the jungle-borne savagery that makes us break the rules. We forgot to notice that there was no check or balance for greed and hubris. We confuse selfishness with rational self-interest. Or thought we cared but not enough to speak up...or do something. Not everybody gets a fair suck of the salve. Can't see that when we win we lose. Its too late to stop it now. The wheel keeps turning, one day indistinguishable...Someday a big rain is gonna come... or maybe its the fire next time.

:lol:
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Next

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests