Paul B. Farrell: A ‘no-growth’ boom will follow 2012 global crash

[marmar]

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch


SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — There is a global economic boom coming, but unfortunately, that boom comes only after a systemic collapse of the global economy, markets and capitalism — a collapse that may well eliminate billions of people from the planet. Shocking? Cruel? Brutal? Yes.

But folks, that is the coded message in many recent warnings from environmental economists who finally realize that nothing will wake up the public. Nothing but a catastrophic system failure. Only then, a path to reform, recovery, a new boom.

......(snip)......

Until we reach that point, we focus on everyday stuff, like jobs, the kids, short-term buy-sells and ideological stuff like today’s anti-science, anti-intellectual political rhetoric. Free-market capitalism. Don’t tread on me. Stuff like that keeps us in denial about the future. No, we don’t plan, don’t act until a crisis. Not till the asteroid is about to hit. Even then, we pray for divine intervention to rescue us. Or a Churchill to emerge, take charge of the impossible challenge, get people energized and focused on a common cause. Then we’ll charge ahead, solve the problem. Until then, our brains can only think short-term.

Massive denial of global catastrophe dead ahead

And yet, the facts about the coming catastrophe are so obvious. Just apply a little grade-school math and economic common sense: Our planet’s natural resources can reasonably support about 5 billion people. That’s a fact. Another: Today we have 7 billion. That’s a problem, 2 billion too many. We’re consuming commodities and natural resources at a rate of 1.5 Earths, according to estimates by the Global Footprint Network of scientists and economists. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-no-growth-boom-will-follow-2012-global-crash-2011-08-23

[tama]

1. Umm... nope

that's not a fact: "Our planet’s natural resources can reasonably support about 5 billion people."

[jtuck004]

4. How many do you think it can support?

Because we are running up on 7 billion, and just at the start of when everyone outside of our 300 million has the capacity to want the lifestyle we have in the U.S., which comes with a huge amount of waste and degredation of the environment.

Would you think it is more or less than that?

[tama]

5. Quantity

of people is not the problem, I counted by Maslow's criteria something like 80 billion but there need not be any theoretical limit.

The problem is the "lifestyle we have in the US". Which qualitatively does not count as well-being but as collective disease.

[GliderGuider]

8. Based on ecological footprint calculations

We are currently 50% into overshoot (the world's average ecological footprint is 2.7 gha/person, while the available biocapacity is 1.8 gha/person).

That 2.7 gha/person equates to an average material standard of living similar to Turkey.

In order to come out of an overshoot condition the average footprint would have to drop by 33% to 1.8 gha/person. That would imply a drop in the global average standard of living to the equivalent of Guatemala or Burma.

If we want to support 10 billion people sustainably, our average footprint would have to drop still further (since the planet's biocapacity isn't increasing the last I heard) - to around 1.25 gha/person. That implies the planet could support 10 billion people at an average material standard of living equivalent to Kyrgyzstan or Zimbabwe.

The average European footprint is around 6 gha/person, so the planet can currently accomodate about 2 billion people with an average European standard of living.

Of course to anyone with any ecological understanding, these calculations are wildly optimistic, because of the impact of overshoot on the carrying capacity of the system:



I just did a little thought experiment. The assumptions are:

1. The total biocapacity of the Earth drops by 20% over the next 40 years due to the degrading effects of overshoot.
2. The world population is about 7 billion in 2050, after peaking in about 2030 at 8.5 billion.

Under those assumptions, in 2050 the sustainable global average ecological footprint will be 1.4 gha/person, giving those 7 billion people the average material standard of living equivalent to Gabon or Vietnam today.

If the world population stays high, even trying to maintain (let alone improve) our average standard of living will continue to drive us deeper and deeper into overshoot, with ever worsening long term consequences.

On edit: Just to be clear, this is the path I think we will follow - driving ever deeper into overshoot until something serious breaks.

[socialindependocrat]

2. I agree with Tama

The extra 2 billion have to have accumulated over a period of time. we'd hear some complaints by now.

If we are alredy at 1.5X the capacity we'd be pretty squeezed.

My only consolation: Be patient, the middle-east is working on the problem. Can't you see that??!!

If you're worried, get off your diet and go to a buffet. You'll feel much better in the morning.

Sorry, I'm obviously in denial.

[JDPriestly]

3. We are pretty squeezed.

Maybe you aren't, but people in the world in general are very, very squeezed.

That is why people across the Middle East have risen up. They blame the leaders of their countries for their economic deprivation. Fact is that the increased communication and availability of information have made people aware that they are economically disadvantaged.

[socialindependocrat]

6. Economically squeezed is not unable to survive...

The people are economically squeezed because of the greed of their leaders. If you had a society like saudi Arabia you would have greed at the top but more money so the people could live a comfortable lifestyle. The unrest in the Middle East is because of the greed of the leaders. Maybe with an increase in wages and purchasing power we would see growth in demand for products and growth in industry in the Middle East and we would then feel competition for raw materials in the rest of the world. From that idea follows this: The more simplistic a lifestyle we all live allows for the support of a larger population. As societies become more advanced - more buildings and demand for resources and power - then fewer people can be supported by the planet.

The next thought is, why don't populations who have many, many people teach the need for population control?

Then, in the U.S., why did we used to teach "Zero population growth" and then allow immigration that will lead to overpopulation?

Then, my current thought, why do we allow lovers of democracy to come to the United States? If we deny their entry into the U.S. they will be forced to promote Democracy in their home countries thus spreading democracy around the world?

Just some other thoughts J.D.

[NickB79]

7. We're already hearing the complaints, so to speak

They're all around us in the form of environmental destruction. Global warming is the most obvious one, as well as overfishing, soil degradation, water shortages, etc.

If you study biology, you encounter a term called overshoot. When graphed out, it clearly shows that a species population keeps growing well beyond it passes the ecosystem's carrying capacity, until the population goes through a collapse to well below carrying capacity numbers. A population of deer, for example, can grow well over their carrying capacity in the short term by simply eating everything they can find. Eventually, however, they eat all the plants and seeds required to regenerate the forest, and starvation sets in as the forest dies.

[GliderGuider]

9. That's the catch isn't it?

Not only does the population collapse, but it may not rebound even to previously sustainable numbers because the overshoot condition degrades the carrying capacity.

[GliderGuider]

10. One thing always fascinates me about these sorts of articles.

The authors generally do a very good job of figuring out what's happening, and what the implications are of either BAU or baked-in-the-cake changes. Sometines they even do a good job of figuring out what caused the clusterfuck in the first place (not so much here, but that's OK, Farrell does a good enough job on the implications).

Then it comes time to ask, "What the heck do we do about it?"

At that juncture most critical thought ceases, and the dancing pixies are invited onstage to entertain us while the author's credibility beats a hasty retreat. Here are Farrell's pixies, cribbed from Gilding and Randers:

1. Forests: Cut deforestation and other logging by 50%.
   
2. Coal: Close 1,000 dirty coal power plants within 5 years.
   
3. Electricity: Ration electricity, and rapidly drive new efficiency.
   
4. Carbon Capture Storage: Retrofit 1,000 coal power plants with Carbon Capture Storage.
   
5. Wind/solar: Erect a wind turbine or solar plant in every town.
   
6. Deserts. Create huge wind and solar farms in suitable deserts.
   
7. Waste: Let no waste go to waste; recycle and reuse by-products.
   
8. Autos: Ration use of dirty cars to cut transport emissions by 50%.
   
9. Biofuels: Prepare for biofuels power stations using CCS technology.
   
10. Travel: Strand half of the world’s aircraft.
    
11. Methane: Capture or burn methane from agriculture and landfills.
    
12. Food: Move society away from diets of climate-unfriendly protein.
    
13. Farming: New methods reduce gas emissions, maximize soil carbon.

Of these, some will happen (7, 11, 13), some will happen but not enough to matter (5, 6, 9), some will happen only after the breakdown has begun in earnest (3, 8 and 10) and some will simply not happen (1, 2, 4 and 12).

If an author is going to be brave enough to look the problem square in the face, he should also have the courage to assess the solution space with the same clear-eyed awareness. Pretending that changes that are not possible or probable - whether because of economics, social resistance, available time, resources or technology - form a realistic set of solutions does no one any favours. It's simply a recipe for sending the sheep back to sleep with the lullaby, "They will fix it again, they always have before..."

Rather than trotting out the the usual threadbare Tinkerbelle chorus line, I'd much prefer to hear the occasional pundit say, "I have no fucking clue what we should be doing in this situation. It's way too big for me to draw a map to the exit door. Do whatever seems right to you in the face of this knowledge. Godspeed, and sauve qui peut."

[The2ndWheel]

11. That answer goes against everything we do

While I agree with it, that non chorus line answer is pretty much some sort of combination of something that will happen, something that will happen but not enough to matter, something that will happen only after the breakdown has begun in earnest, and something that simply won't happen.

There really is literally no answer to it. Civilizations have come and gone, but there has usually been either somewhere else to go to start again, or at the very least no real governing body stopping the expansion of this or that center of power regardless of what was in the way. Where does that world exist anymore?

"Do whatever seems right to you in the face of this knowledge."

How? I can maybe think of a few things that someone might be able to get away with, but like you said, I doubt it would be enough to matter.

[GliderGuider]

12. "I doubt it would be enough to matter."

To matter to who? Nobody says we each need to save the world with our bare hands. Planting a tree, making a new friend, deciding to give one's money to the poor, teaching a gardening class - all these are things that might seem right to someone, somewhere, in the face of this knowledge. Sometimes it's the small things that are the most important to the individual.