From The Guardian via Peter Berkeley:
.
The 1972 book Limits to Growth, which predicted our civilisation would probably collapse some time this century, has been criticised as doomsday fantasy since it was published. Back in 2002, self-styled environmental expert Bjorn Lomborg consigned it to the “dustbin of history”. …
It doesn’t belong there. Research from the University of Melbourne has found the book’s forecasts are accurate, 40 years on. If we continue to track in line with the book’s scenario, expect the early stages of global collapse to start appearing soon. …
As the graphs show (see full article), the University of Melbourne research has not found proof of collapse as of 2010 (although growth has already stalled in some areas). But in Limits to Growth those effects only start to bite around 2015-2030.
The first stages of decline may already have started. The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and ongoing economic malaise may be a harbinger of the fallout from resource constraints. The pursuit of material wealth contributed to unsustainable levels of debt, with suddenly higher prices for food and oil contributing to defaults – and the GFC.
The issue of peak oil is critical. Many independent researchers conclude that “easy” conventional oil production has already peaked. Even the conservative International Energy Agency has warned about peak oil.
Peak oil could be the catalyst for global collapse. Some see new fossil fuel sources like shale oil, tar sands and coal seam gas as saviours, but the issue is how fast these resources can be extracted, for how long, and at what cost. If they soak up too much capital to extract the fallout would be widespread.
Our research does not indicate that collapse of the world economy, environment and population is a certainty. Nor do we claim the future will unfold exactly as the MIT researchers predicted back in 1972. Wars could break out; so could genuine global environmental leadership. Either could dramatically affect the trajectory.
But our findings should sound an alarm bell. It seems unlikely that the quest for ever-increasing growth can continue unchecked to 2100 without causing serious negative effects – and those effects might come sooner than we think.
As (cheap to extract) resources like oil get depleted other options become more viable, say solar energy or wind energy or tidal energy or oil sands or deep sea drilling .. and as such “peak oil” is a bunk theory as oil is around $100 and will stay there for a while due to fracking and tight oil extraction and oil sands .. all viable around $100 .. until that gets depleted and we move to more expensive oil ..
And if unionized public transit workers and taxi organizations didn’t block innovators like Uber ride sharing applications we actually might need less cars, buses or taxis in most congested cities.
Looked at the Tesla store today in downtown Vancouver .. and if many more cars are electric we’d see other prices rise, say for certain rare metals used in batteries and/or for their disposal.
So, I am very hopeful for the human race as they will figure things out as (oil, battery, water, food, ..) prices rise (or oceans for that matter).
See resistance against Uber:
Toronto: business.financialpost.com/2014/09/08/uber-technologies-inc-toronto-launch
New Orleans: http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/new_orleans_isnt_alone_in_its.html
Germany: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c64c4b42-3279-11e4-a5a2-00144feabdc0.html#slide0
many more elsewhere ..
I guess oil is still too cheap …
The limits of economic growth are set by the capacity of the biosphere to accommodate the environmental impacts of technological civilization. The only energy supply that is free is available in the form of sunshine; all other forms of energy supply and utilization come at an expense to the biosphere. Technological civilization is like a cancer that has the potential to destroy its’ host in this case the biosphere upon which we humans depend for the very “stuff” of life. Today we can see this process unfolding in the loss of biodiversity and the extinction of species by human activity.
I’ve long thought that peak oil might well be the only thing that saved us from ourselves. I’m not sure that economic collapse is guarenteed. My expectation is that as renewable energy sources become more affordable than fossil fuels, we’ll move towards more sustainable energy sources, and be stronger for it. Pricing forces can change the world much more effectively than environmental scolding ever could.
If your thesis was correct then this would not be the news of today;
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29115845