Conclusions
It is hard to say who are the relative “winners” and “losers” under this global mid-stage export mitigation strategy.
On one hand, FS, rAP, EU, JP and CN all are able to stablize their consumption rate decline to 2 b/py by mitigating their exports. At least the people living in these regions would count this as “win.”
Of these five regions, CN and FS fair the best, with the per capita consumption rate being extended for at least 36 years for CN (i.e., from 2034 to at least the end of the study period in 2065) and for 17 years for FS (i.e., from 2020 to 2037). For rAP, EU and JP, however, export mitigation only extends the per capita consumption rate of 2 b/py for two to four years.
On the other hand, I see several “losing” situations.
The biggest absolute loser, literally, seems to be rAP which is predicted to have a population crash starting one year earlier, and declining by about 700 million more people, than under late-stage mitigation, and overall a loss of 2.2 billion people.
AF is loser because export mitigation by other regions causes AF’s per capita consumption to drop even more steeply than under late-stage mitigation, and therefore, the population crash is even steeper. There is still a predicted population decline of 1.1 billion people but the decline is over an even shorter period.
EU is also a loser with its predicted ocuring population crash about three years early and being a sustained population decline of about 90 million people, than under late-stage mitigation.
JP is also a loser in that its population crash of about 35 million occurs 1 year earlier and the decline is slightly steep and more sustained, as compared to late-stage mitigation.
While having no effect on population, at least economically, CN, SA and NA are losers, in that they all have steeper declines in per capita consumption, as compared to late-stage mitigation.
The mid-stage mitigation strategy has no detrimental effect on ME because it per capita consumption rate stays above 2 b/py until the last year of the study period and substantially doesn’t import any petroleum.
A depressing if interesting analysis. I do think his suggestion that countries will carry on exporting at least a while longer makes sense and switching course once it becomes clear that the alternative is your own people starving is very plausible.
These posts are very difficult to read so I have only put the conclusion. The gist being that focusing on the EU, you see a sustained drop in living standards from about now (sure the Greeks can confirm that!!!) to about 2030 - 2050 when things seem to stablise - although only after 90 million Europeans have died.
[/img]