Dear Chris, Len, and all,
In the 10 years since the CSIRO work you mention (Future Dilemmas), that modelling has been enlarged and extended – by a diminishing number of colleagues including myself. In particular, it was clearly important to search for solutions using our `stocks and flows’ simulation applied to the problems identified in the Future Dilemmas.
What follows is a summary of my personal reflections; they should not be interpreted as representing the views of CSIRO.
In brief, this recent work strongly confirms Chris’ observations. And I think it has implications for the system design (as opposed to system modelling) perspective in Richard Mochelle’s reply.
In the latest modelling, while I didn’t specify a steady-state economy (SSE) as an outcome, this is what effectively resulted from my attempts to lower GHG emissions, ease oil constraints and other environmental pressures, while keeping the economy functioning. But there are immense challenges, as outlined below, which I believe make the SSE outcome extremely unlikely.
For a reference:
Turner, G. M. (2011) Consumption and the Environment: Impacts from a System Perspective. In Landscapes of Urban Consumption (Ed, Newton, P. W.), pp.51-70, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
and have some PPT presentations that summarise it. (Several of my other projects and publications find similar outcomes, even though they focus on different topics and details.)
On a side note relevant to the 1st of Chris’ points below, this work was an off-shoot of simpler work in 2010 for the Immigration Department looking (again) at the environmental and resource implications of different immigration (and population) levels. The Department eventually released that report, after months had passed, and after the Population Issues Paper. It was released on the 23rd December 2010. Not surprisingly it received little attention. There were other interesting aspects to the handling of this work; Mark O’Connor has generally documented these well in a piece for The Drum website.
But back to content…
While the modelling showed that it is technically feasible to achieve the SSE or to approach sustainability, there are important caveats. Even with my background as a technologist (applied physics) many of the technological assumptions I made were rather heroic; and of particular note, a reliance on imported oil was not eliminated.
But (putting these caveats aside for a moment) what was striking was the immensity and rapidity of change required. Population had to be stabilised (zero net immigration & 1.6 births/female); multiple substantial technological/engineering schemes had to be implemented simultaneously; consumption rates had to be substantially reduced; and most importantly, the working week had to diminish to 3-days by 2050.
I would judge that nothing short of a true social and political revolution (i.e., probably a “painful” process) would be required all these necessary changes. Feasible in principle? Yes. Likely? No.
And this is just for Australia. We can’t ignore the global context, and particularly the issue of oil constraints.
This has hit home even more strongly for me when I recently updated my comparison of the original 1970?s Limits to Growth scenario modelling with almost 40 years of data (from 1970 to 2010). This is published in:
Turner, G. M. (2012). On the cusp of global collapse? Updated comparison of the Limits to Growth with historical data. GAiA, 21(2), 116-124.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oekom/gaia/2012/00000021/00000002/art00010
Essentially, we are still tracking on the `business-as-usual’ scenario, which sees a collapse occur through resource constraint. What is alarming, is that the key mechanism for the collapse, and the timing, appear to be playing out. It is not that resources (particularly, oil) run out at all, but that they become increasingly difficult to extract. This has the effect that the industrial system, services and agriculture are not adequately supported and output begins to collapse, followed by population.
In the model – and contrary to common understanding – this doesn’t happen some decades away, but at about 2015. Overall, the BAU scenario has rather startling alignment with contemporary events.
While we can never be certain, I don’t think that we can simply dismiss this as coincidence; too many of the ducks line up. There is a real prospect a collapse has effectively begun (but will it pan out as modelled, especially the timing?).
This does not mean that we should lose hope, become despondent and chuck it all in. On this point, I agree with Richard Mochelle: “do what we think OUGHT to be done, what MUST be done”. Unfortunately, surely certain wealthy miners agree with this approach but with much different aims?
Based on the research, I believe it’s time to create as many “lifeboats” as possible, in order to leap into these if necessary. In many on-the-ground ways this probably has much in common with a greenleap into a sustainable future. But the difference is likely to be that lifeboats depend more on bottom-up decentralised local initiatives. A focus on local food, water, energy, and social systems, right down to the household level. This is where I remain hopeful.
Best wishes,
Graham
The Limits to Growth standard run scenario produced 40 years ago continues to align well with historical data that has been updated in this paper, following a 30-year comparison by the author. The scenario results in collapse of the global economy and environment, and subsequently the population. Although the modelled fall in population occurs after about 2030 - with death rates reversing contemporary trends and rising from 2020 onward - 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 finan cial crisis are potentially related to mechanisms of breakdown in the Limits to Growth standard run 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, despite obvious financial problems associated with debt.
2015? Sounds about right to me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
