News When Will Society Collapse Due to Pollution?

[phinds]

Instead, it's knee-deep in lawyers.

Same thing, so I guess the predictions were right.

 

[russ_watters]

I have a friend who is hardcore. Grows his own hops. Even he pours entire batches down the drain.

Oh, no, even when it's awful it is still beer, and I made it so I'm going to drink every last drop.

One time I brewed a Pilsner that turned out brown.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One time I brewed a Pilsner that turned out brown.

"the pale stale ale with the foam on the bottom".

The Triple Rock Brewery in Berkeley makes something called Tree Frog Ale. I swear it tastes like it's made from real tree frogs.

 

[Bystander]

"the pale stale ale with the foam on the bottom".

"Old Frothingslosh?"

 

[aheight]

I sent this to a friend of mine who studies this sort of thing as a hobby. I have always found his analyses of such things to be very thoughtful and knowledgeable. Here are his very quick off the cuff comments.

Phinds, no offense but I think your friend did a poor analysis of this study:

1. In general, at the time this study was done, the Club for Growth was replete with doom and gloom studies.

The cited reference refers to a new 2020 study of the original 1970 World3 results done by Gaya Herrington who is an analyst at KPMG, a professional service company providing ESG (environmental, social and governance) impact of business investments. She is credentialed in my opinion.

2. The article does not give any data or explanation, except for the three graphs (see below).

Gaya's paper Updates to limit to growth is cited in the article and it contains empirical data.

3. The graphs are very general, with no values on the vertical axis – so it is hard to tell how closely they track current empirical data. Clearly the origin is not zero, which always makes me think the presentation is being manipulated to emphasize a point that the data does not support.

The graphic data in the plots are scaled to fit on one plot:

It should be noted that the numerical scales of the World3 output differ widely between variables. They are scaled in Figure 1 (as in the LtG books) to fit in one plot. This means that relative positions to each other on the y-axis have no meaning whatsoever. What is relevant is the movement of the variables over time in each of the four scenarios. These movements together depict the storyline of that scenario, which unfolds based on the specific scenario assumptions.

4. There is no explanation for what is driving any of the variables.

The paper cited above, "Updates to Limits to Growth" provides the data used for the analysis in section 2.4. For example, for the population data:

Figures from the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs (UN DESA PD, 2019) were used for this variable.

5. I don’t know what is meant by “Resources”, but my sense is that the known reserves of almost all resources is at least as large today as it was in 1900, while the graphs in all three scenarios show a dramatic reduction from 1900 to 2020. I think that any model that shows ALL resources being depleted in 80 years is just plain silly. Do they expect that the sun will burn out in that time frame?

Section 2.4 of the paper describes resource data such as coal, natural gas and oil.

6. Perhaps global pollution today is worse than in the 1980s (as all three graphs show) but I am quite certain that pollution in the US is actually better now than it was 40 years ago, and I think this is the case everywhere in the developed world. Even China seems to be getting a handle on pollution.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide and plastic production were used for this variable:

World3 assumes pollution to be globally distributed, persistent, and damaging to human health and agricultural production. CO2 concentrations and plastic production were used as proxies

7. The key variable of the five shown, in my opinion, is population. Most studies I am aware of project world population leveling or declining over the next 80 years (except of course for the RCP85 study used by the UN climate control panel).

I cited the source of the population above

8. Setting aside the unexplained substantial variations of the variables over the next 80 years, and only looking at the end points in 2100, I don’t think even the worst case of the three (BAU2) shows the collapse of civilization. It shows the world being back where it was in (the roaring) 1920s. This triggers another of my “hot buttons”: using absolute numbers when per capita numbers are much more meaningful.

Only one of the four models, "Business as usual with a dramatic increase in the pollution variable" (BAU2) suggest "global society would experience a sharp decline (i.e., collapse) in economic, social, and environmental conditions within the twenty-first century."

I think we can agree the proxies used for the "pollution" variable, atmospheric carbon dioxide and plastic pollution will continue to be significant environmental issues: carbon dioxide is the highest it's been in several hundred-thousand years and it's not easily (significiantly) sequestered, and plastic is slow to degrade.

 

[russ_watters]

Section 2.4 of the paper describes resource data such as coal, natural gas and oil.

I haven't done a deep dive, but I will at least give the author some credit for this:

Around 1990, it became clear that non-renewable
resources, particularly fossil fuels, had turned out to be more plentiful than assumed in the 1972 BAU scenario.

1990 is pretty far back. If they realized their projection was way wrong before the fracking boom, by about 2010 with the death of Peak Oil they must have realized it was way, way, way wrong. So it doesn't look like a non-renewable resource-based collapse is anywhere on any projectable time horizon.

They go on:

Randers therefore postulated that
not resource scarcity, but pollution, especially from greenhouse gases, would cause the halt in growth.

Wow, fortunately there is a back-up thesis that still works (that wasn't even known/available when the book was written)! Frankly, when the main thesis turns out to be really, really wrong it does not invoke confidence in the back-up thesis/projection being better. Especially when the thesis is postulated -- assumed. They are assuming that collapse is inevitable, not predicting it. The question they are asking is: Assuming collapse due to "pollution" is inevitable under these conditions when would it happen?

To me that's too hand-wavey. I reject the postulate that "pollution" based collapse is any more inevitable than an oil-based collapse. My beer is not hand-wavey. I know when I brew it, to a high degree of certainty, what the Malthusian end of that universe will look like (after some practice). I know when, why and what the end state will be.

Theirs is math without a direct connection to reality. I'm not even concerned about the lack of units/scaling and choices of proxies - there is a lot of data there, but it's not what is driving the model. It's the cause-effect hand-waving that's the main problem: How will it happen? We don't even have a high degree of certainty what the planet will look like in 2100, much less a solid idea of how that could impact human civilization. Note: unlike the "pollution" based collapse, the resource-based collapse model did include a mechanism. It's not one I agree with, but for now it is moot anyway since the input value was so wrong.

I think we can agree the proxies used for the "pollution" variable, atmospheric carbon dioxide and plastic pollution will continue to be significant environmental issues: carbon dioxide is the highest it's been in several hundred-thousand years and it's not easily (significiantly) sequestered, and plastic is slow to degrade.

Sure. But "significant environmental issues" ≠ "collapse is inevitable". I'm not willing to accept the assumed starting premise that collapse is inevitable. That's something that should be argued/modeled/predicted, not assumed.