5 ms·
Other important state variables in the model are the stocks of "non renewable resources" and "pollution". From memory I believe one of the ideas in the world m
by shoo 5y ago
Other important state variables in the model are the stocks of "non renewable resources" and "pollution".
From memory I believe one of the ideas in the world model is that over time, as existing stocks of non-renewables are consumed, the remaining stocks of non-renewable resources become more expensive for society to access. E.g. EROI [1] for fossil fuel deposits decreasing. Similarly when mining ore, if the richer ore deposits have all being exhausted, then only lower-grade ore remains, so maybe you need to expend more energy blasting and moving 2x or 3x as much rock as a few decades ago to obtain the same output of metal.
So the idea is that at some point it starts to become more and more expensive -- in terms of the energy input required -- to produce resources that society requires to exist in a steady-state, let alone to continue to fuel growth of the physical economy.
Similarly for pollution -- e.g. for global warming you can regard the atmosphere as a stock where you can store some finite amount of CO_2 pollution before it really starts creating a mess. Once there isn't much stock of cheap CO_2 pollution storage capacity remaining in the atmosphere, you have to start figuring out something else to do, which consumes more energy.
The increasing energy costs of extracting enough non-renewables and dealing with pollution to fuel society leaves less energy for everything else. At some point the energy required for industrial output grows to the extent that there is no longer sufficient energy left for services such as healthcare, education, etc. Therefore the quality of healthcare and education falls off. That has consequences for the human population.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
- TrispusAttucks 5y agoYou're right on. People often think peak oil means no more oil. Really it just means it's no longer energy positive investment. [1] The EROI for fossil fuels has decreased as the availability of oil, coal, gas has reduced and the cost of production increased. Fracking for oil or gas (as has been done in Taranaki for years) is expensive and polluting. Extracting oil from the tar sands in northern Canada is a similarly destructive process. So, what was an EROI of 100:1 last century is now sometimes little more than 10:1. [1] https://www.newsroom.co.nz/why-hydrogen-is-not-a-cure-for-emissions https://www.newsroom.co.nz/why-hydrogen-is-not-a-cure-for-em...
- actually_a_dog 5y agoEh. There's no practical difference between "no oil left the ground" and "it's too expensive and/or energy intensive to pump out any more oil."
- comicjk 5y agoThere is a difference if new technology can be introduced, which is what happened last time. Conventional oil production peaked in 2006.
- bencollier49 5y agoYes. Checking this via various sources online shows that the predictions are that capital intensity will reach 50% of all investment by 2020, at which point the collapse begins. https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2763500/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/00...
- navaati 5y agoOn the other hand, population levels reducing (via education and stability) will reduce the amount of resources globally needed, and the loss of workforce can be compensated by technology. That can lead us to a scenario that's perfectly fine despite a high cost of resources.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoThere are 2 scenarios in the original Limits to Growth that encapsulate this: 1. The "comprehensive technology" scenario in which population stabilizes, food production increases to keep pace, pollution eventually drops to essentially zero, and industrial output actually decreases as a result of increased efficiency. 2. The "stabilized world" scenario, where population, industrial output, and food output all stabilize quickly, and pollution also eventually drops to 0. The difference between these 2 scenarios is essentially that in the latter, technology does not progress fast enough to save us, but we are able to put the brakes on and save ourself; while, in the former, increases in efficiency due to technology are what allows us to stave off collapse.