MIT report: collapse by 2030

[UndercoverElephant]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/0 ... y-MIT-team

Next Great Depression? MIT researchers predict ‘global economic collapse’ by 2030:

A new study from researchers at Jay W. Forrester's institute at MIT says that the world could suffer from "global economic collapse" and "precipitous population decline" if people continue to consume the world's resources at the current pace.

Smithsonian Magazine writes that Australian physicist Graham Turner says "the world is on track for disaster" and that current evidence coincides with a famous, and in some quarters, infamous, academic report from 1972 entitled, "The Limits to Growth."

Bloody optimists...

[Aurora]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/0 ... y-MIT-team

Next Great Depression? MIT researchers predict ‘global economic collapse’ by 2030:

A new study from researchers at Jay W. Forrester's institute at MIT says that the world could suffer from "global economic collapse" and "precipitous population decline" if people continue to consume the world's resources at the current pace.

Smithsonian Magazine writes that Australian physicist Graham Turner says "the world is on track for disaster" and that current evidence coincides with a famous, and in some quarters, infamous, academic report from 1972 entitled, "The Limits to Growth."

Bloody optimists...

[adam2]

Next week is included in "by 2030" which is not the same as "in 2030"

[UndercoverElephant]

Actually, the article would have been better titled: "Peak Population predicted for 2030", which is just about believable, although the suffering will have started long before then in order for the death rate to exceed the birth rate.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

I'm working on the basis of it being bleedin' obvious to all and sundry by 2020.

[UndercoverElephant]

http://peakfood.co.uk/

Peak Food

Famine in the West by 2025?

[mobbsey]

Note to self: Remember to take the "I told you so" T-shirt out of mothballs and get ready to wear.

[mobbsey]

OK, I've had a change to dig back to the source of this article and speed-viewed the content -- and for the 'peak' movement it's quite explosive.

The conference in question was --
Perspectives on Limits to Growth: Challenges to Building a Sustainable Planet, Smithsonian Institute/MIT conference, 1st March 2012.

This MIT/Smithsonian conference in the US seems to have drifted completely under to eco-radar over here. E.g., neither The Ecologist, The Guardian nor The Independent had any coverage of this conference. Then again, for most mainstream environmentalists its content is pretty challenging -- and so it isn't going to be a popular story to write. No major campaign group appears to have issued a press release on it either.

See the conference write-up and download presentations from -- http://si.edu/consortia/limitstogrowth2012

View the proceedings via the YouTube playlist at -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiG3I5Da ... 9CA87E5B47

The main article from Smithsonian Magazine is at --
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science%2 ... pment.html

See other takes on the proceedings at --
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324392/ ... 70%2Ds.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/ne ... 52944.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/0 ... MIT%2Dteam

What's really significant about the information coming out of the proceedings, following on from the recent work like Graham Turner at CSIRO in Australia -- http://www.fraw.org.uk/fwd?csiro2008 -- (if you remember, Turner made a great presentation to APPGOPO last year on this topic) is that the human ecological outlook is pretty grim, irrespective of the climate/carbon issue that dominates 90% of the ecological debate! The important criticism raised here is that the monothematic concentration on climate change by campaign groups is allowing these critical development issues to drift past the media agenda. The failure of campaign groups to engaged with a "limits"- based agenda, and instead focus on corporate- and consumer-friendly solutions, is allowing society to head over the prophetic "cliff edge" unchecked.

I was involved with the FoE head office during the mid-90s, and worked with other leading campaign groups during this time (e.g. Greenpeace, WWF, RSPB and CPRE). During the early/mid 90s, following the "bubble" of eco-concern post 1989, it was a shame to see the whole "limits"-based agenda of environmentalism being junked in favour of a more politically acceptable "sustainable consumption" meme. The environment movement has let-go of the 'limits to growth' critique of modernism to its own detriment, and today we're paying the price for that -- not just with the early phases of climate change, but more immediately with high resource and food prices and rising pollution.

Personally:

# I think if you look at the conference presentations; and

# The recent background research from the likes of Graham Turner, Ugo Bardi and others (e.g. read Bardi's book on-line at http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4419-9416-5); and

# You move past the dry, dispassionate approach of the science

-- then we're left with only one conclusion...

The heads of all the major campaign groups should resign in shame for ignoring the truth of our present predicament -- and they should all resign together precisely because that will highlight both the failure of the movement to engage with the issues openly, and to hold to account the political-economic paradigm that consciously ignores any such limit-based criticisms of present policy.

Now, I know that some will say that all this is "too negative". I don't see it that way. What this evidence tells us is that society MUST now change, and no amount of half-hearted attempts to buy our way out of that process (e.g. green consumerism, zero carbon strategies, etc.) is going to avoid that outcome. Degrowth, for the developed world at least, must be the leading edge of the transition. If people have a problem with that then they should look to their own personal commitment to ecological change versus their enjoyment of a certain kind of affluent lifestyle -- and then accept that change from that comfortable and convenient way of life is inevitable.

To avoid these truths is to deny your own role in both the problem, and the potential downsizing/degrowth solutions that might address the problems highlighted by 'Limits to Growth' over the past forty years. Lifestyle is the issue that no one dare mention, but tackling the impacts of affluence is the only way we'll deal with this predicament.

[woodburner]

I have not read through the links in Mobbsey's post, but I'm curious to know the source data for the chart in UE's post. There are another 10 years which could have the data plotted to see how the actual compared with the predicted figures.

[mobbsey]

There are another 10 years which could have the data plotted to see how the actual compared with the predicted figures.

Unfortunately there isn't -- not in terms of "reliable" data that's been audited according to a protocol, and therefore you can include in studies such as LtG with confidence in the value of the model output. E.g., if we're looking at figures which have some confidence because they're audited, not provisional estimates, then bodies like IEA or UNFAO are still reporting 'real' data between 2006-2008/9 as part of their latest digests. A lot of post 2008/9 global data is estimated which, given effects of global crash on consumption/economic turnover, means its a bit dodgy to use.

The graph looks like its adapted from the 2004 "LtG: The 30 Year Update" study (good book, but not bedtime reading!), which is why the data stops in 2000 -- by 2003/4 that would roughly be the cut-off date for audited data.

[biffvernon]

Degrowth, for the developed world at least, must be the leading edge of the transition. If people have a problem with that then they should look to their own personal commitment to ecological change versus their enjoyment of a certain kind of affluent lifestyle -- and then accept that change from that comfortable and convenient way of life is inevitable.

I don't have a problem with that. Indeed, if everybody else in Britain were to degrow to my level the land would be more green and pleasant. Win/win all round I say.

[Peter1010]

View the proceedings via the YouTube playlist at -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiG3I5Da ... 9CA87E5B47

The presentation from Dennis Meadows (5 of 12), is excellent. A must watch.

[UndercoverElephant]

What's really significant about the information coming out of the proceedings, following on from the recent work like Graham Turner at CSIRO in Australia -- http://www.fraw.org.uk/fwd?csiro2008 -- (if you remember, Turner made a great presentation to APPGOPO last year on this topic) is that the human ecological outlook is pretty grim, irrespective of the climate/carbon issue that dominates 90% of the ecological debate! The important criticism raised here is that the monothematic concentration on climate change by campaign groups is allowing these critical development issues to drift past the media agenda. The failure of campaign groups to engaged with a "limits"- based agenda, and instead focus on corporate- and consumer-friendly solutions, is allowing society to head over the prophetic "cliff edge" unchecked.

I was involved with the FoE head office during the mid-90s, and worked with other leading campaign groups during this time (e.g. Greenpeace, WWF, RSPB and CPRE). During the early/mid 90s, following the "bubble" of eco-concern post 1989, it was a shame to see the whole "limits"-based agenda of environmentalism being junked in favour of a more politically acceptable "sustainable consumption" meme. The environment movement has let-go of the 'limits to growth' critique of modernism to its own detriment, and today we're paying the price for that -- not just with the early phases of climate change, but more immediately with high resource and food prices and rising pollution.

The Light Green Movement is dead. Long live the Deep Green Movement.

-- then we're left with only one conclusion...

The heads of all the major campaign groups should resign in shame for ignoring the truth of our present predicament -- and they should all resign together precisely because that will highlight both the failure of the movement to engage with the issues openly, and to hold to account the political-economic paradigm that consciously ignores any such limit-based criticisms of present policy.

Now, I know that some will say that all this is "too negative". I don't see it that way. What this evidence tells us is that society MUST now change, and no amount of half-hearted attempts to buy our way out of that process (e.g. green consumerism, zero carbon strategies, etc.) is going to avoid that outcome. Degrowth, for the developed world at least, must be the leading edge of the transition. If people have a problem with that then they should look to their own personal commitment to ecological change versus their enjoyment of a certain kind of affluent lifestyle -- and then accept that change from that comfortable and convenient way of life is inevitable.

To avoid these truths is to deny your own role in both the problem, and the potential downsizing/degrowth solutions that might address the problems highlighted by 'Limits to Growth' over the past forty years. Lifestyle is the issue that no one dare mention, but tackling the impacts of affluence is the only way we'll deal with this predicament.

If your message runs something like "we must change direction now, or there will be a catastrophe" then sooner or later we either change direction, or you must change the message. And if we haven't changed direction then you can only change the message to something like "it is now too late to avoid a catastrophe." Unfortunately, the failure of the environmental movement was all too predictable. The history of that movement is one of occasionally winning battles while comprehensively losing the war.

I might add that it is hard to justify not focusing on climate change, even after everything written above, because I'm also convinced that that situation is looking more even more dangerous than was five years ago. We have reached the point where all of the ecological problems have started seriously exacerbating all the others We're in very serious and very immediate trouble.

But I guess we knew that already, didn't we? The current decline in living standards, globally, is the start of the die-off, not a temporary economic hiccup.

[UndercoverElephant]

Degrowth, for the developed world at least, must be the leading edge of the transition. If people have a problem with that then they should look to their own personal commitment to ecological change versus their enjoyment of a certain kind of affluent lifestyle -- and then accept that change from that comfortable and convenient way of life is inevitable.

I don't have a problem with that. Indeed, if everybody else in Britain were to degrow to my level the land would be more green and pleasant. Win/win all round I say.

Is there enough land for everybody else to have as much as you have?

[biffvernon]

No, but that's a strawman. The fact that I happen to own a nature reserve has little to do with the price of fish.