New research from the McGill University, published in Nature Communications, maps the distribution of our planet's lakes. It clearly shows how the last ice age shaped and formed many of the 1.4 million lakes, larger than 10 hectares, that contain 15% of all the lake water in the world. Dark blue color indicates density of lakes, and as the map shows the highest density can be found in the northern hemisphere, in regions previously covered in large ice sheets. The rest of the worlds lake water, 85%, can be found in the 10 largest lakes. About half of the lakes are freshwater and the other half are salt lakes.

Global distribution of water volume stored in lakes and reservoirs with a surface area of at least 10 ha. Source: Messager et al. (2016)

Here we are, it’s 2016 and we see a rise in right wing demagogues across Europe and in the United States amidst a prolonged economic downturn. Somehow it feels eerily similar to the 1930s era of the Great Depression and trade wars leading up to World War II. In some respects we do see similar tendencies: excessive borrowing and speculation leading to bubbles and defaults, money printing and currency wars, mass unemployment and destruction of the middle class, a small ruling elite, and more aggressive nationalistic foreign policy. Perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise that human nature has not changed much over a mere 86 years. 

There are, however, some crucial differences from the 1930s and now. In 1930 there were only 2 billion people on the planet, today the count is 7.5 billion. Back then there were still untapped resources, e.g. plenty of easily accessible fossil fuels to dig up and burn, functioning ecosystems and a relatively stable climate. Now, we have reached peak production and headed for decline in almost all natural resources while having to adapt to a changing climate and trying compensate for lost ecosystems. In other words, the situation right now is actually far worse than it was in the 1930s in terms of real world physical conditions. 

These conditions are also the underlying factors to why the global economy is tanking. Reaching a peak in energy production implies hitting a wealth peak since there cannot be any real economic growth without increased energy consumption. Since 1973, when the United States went through local peak oil, and started importing large amounts of oil from the Middle East, the world has seen what happens when peak oil is passed. The average Americans living standard has been in decline ever since and multiple wars have been waged in the interest of securing oil from the Middle East.

I understand that people are fed up with the status quo, the existing power structures, and want change. But no politician can change the fact that resources are diminishing, at most he/she can perhaps do something about the management and distribution of remaining resources. This could be done peacefully but history tells us it will most likely end up in a grab for what’s left by any means necessary. Instead of solving the problems at home many nations will probably turn outwards and try to grab other people's resources while claiming to be under attack from these “others” in form of terrorism, immigration, religious conversion etc. Well, that’s if they can afford it. 

Overall, I think that the deglobalisation trend that started in 2008 will only continue, with more protectionism, stricter border controls, capital controls and failing international cooperation. And when the next major financial crisis hits there will be very little trust left in the international monetary system. Then all hell could break lose. But who knows, we cannot predict the future based on the past.

A growing population and dwindling natural resources, with rapidly rising extraction costs, implies increasing poverty. And this is also what we are noticing among the general populace, a shrinking economic pie has meant smaller pieces for everyone but the super rich who can bet on government stimulated markets. According to McKinsey (2016), real incomes of some 65-70% of households in 25 advanced economies have been flat or falling between 2005-2014. Crushing the long held belief that "the next generation will be better off than their parents".

As people have started to realise that they are having a tougher time to get by economically, or simply less able to buy lots of stuff, trust in governments and social cohesion has fallen. And that is also why we see the phenomena of populist, extremist, politicians gaining more traction as ordinary people become increasingly dissatisfied with status quo.

The divide between the younger and older generation is also growing as younger people are experiencing a harder time finding good paying jobs, saddled with student debt, while expected to provide for a growing share of pensioners. This at the same time as savers, e.g. pensioners, are suffering from negative interest rates and rising living costs.

Earth Overshoot Day is tomorrow, marking the fact that humanity has used up a year's worth of natural resources in only seven months. This have been made possible only by our discovering of stored fossil hydrocarbons which have provided us with cheap and abundant energy. Up until now. As we have plundered the planet for its resources we have hit limits to what Earth's ecosystems can provide without degrading or collapsing. Transgressing those limits means that we now have less resources available every year. 

It's time to wake up to the fact that the world is changing and old beliefs have to be revised. Having children while wasting the Earth's resources is hypocritical if we now claim to be a species with some skill at foresight. 

Humans need clean drinking water, food and energy to survive. These things used to be public goods but we decided, somewhere along the road, to make them private goods. This means that an individual have to make, or inherit, money so she/he can purchase these basic necessities. Those who don’t have money get “weeded out”. This is the human created system that has replaced natural selection. Nowadays it doesn't matter if you are clever, healthy, kind or cooperative as long as you have money. 

Actually money is the wrong term, what a person needs is capital. There are many types of capital but we humans have decided that financial capital is the most important, compared to e.g. social or ecological capital. Again this is because with financial capital we can get other types of capital that we need for our survival and wellbeing. So we accumulate financial capital, as much as we can get, at the cost of degrading other capital bases. We degrade and destroy ecosystems that generate a stable climate, clean water, food and fuel so that over time these resources start to deplete and the cost rises. 

The cost keep rising but the world doesn't pay attention since it’s the most vulnerable that are hit first. It is not until poverty results in death or degradation results in extinction that we start wondering “what is going on?”. We sympathize but feel safe as long as it's happening somewhere else or we have a pile of financial capital to turn to. But what happens if lots of people start deciding that it’s easier to just “move” when rivers dry up, trust breaks down or conflict over remaining resources break out? Syria being a case in point.

Or what happens if the economy takes a beating, perhaps even a sudden crash, that wipes out all your financial capital and/or source of income, what will you do? In some places people can rely on the government, receiving benefits to cover minimum expenses. But what if the crash is so bad that everyone needs benefits at the same time? A healthy government could perhaps manage it. But what if all the government gets in trouble and yours can’t fund the entitlement programs anymore? Now you don’t have a job so you can’t earn money to buy basic goods and the government can’t help you out, you will have to rely on friends and family (community). If that doesn't work perhaps you will move. Greece comes to mind.

The end conclusion is that a growing number of people will have to move as a form of adaptation to rapidly changing socioeconomic or ecological conditions. This, in turn, will create hostility between the “haves” and the “have nots” since there is a limited amount of resources left. The majority are among those who have little since the overall resource pie is shrinking but the minority have more power within the current system since resources are becoming more expensive. This situation will grow worse over time until the majority have had enough. And the a major clash is unavoidable. 

At this point, perhaps, the system that we humans created can be replaced. But some of the social and ecological damage can never be reversed. Whatever happens, we have to be prepared for some very turbulent times.

I find it amazing and tragic how organisations and governments keep issuing reports that confirm the dire situation humanity is in with regards to depleting resources, climate change and economic contraction. Latest is a report Limits Revisited: a review of the limits to growth debate commissioned on behalf of British MPs written by Tim Jackson (author of Prosperity without Growth, 2009) that concludes we are headed for “an eventual collapse of production and living standards” in the next few decades, given business-as-usual. 

The report makes for some interesting reading and refers to some very important studies but offers nothing new in terms of scientific insight. It simply restates what previous studies have already confirmed, the global economy is running into resource limits. Going forward we should not expect resource fuelled economic growth but rather contraction.

As for climate change, we are pretty much doomed to failure, for a 66% chance of avoiding 1.5°C warming (the “safe limit”) the world only has 6 years to decarbonise the entire economy. That seems impossible given that fossil fuels cover 80% of global energy consumption and it takes many decades to replace all the current infrastructure.

It has been more than 40 years since the Club of Rome presented the Limits to Growth report but absolutely nothing has been done to steer society onto a new “greener” path. Resource depletion and emissions have continued unabated. 

Living sustainably is now impossible and instead we have to focus on bolstering our resilience to coming shocks and disturbances. While I do think we should do everything in our power (e.g. limit the destruction of ecosystems, transition from fossil fuels to renewables, go from global to local economies) to change the way we live on this planet we also have to realise that many so called “solutions” are no longer viable because we waited too long. 

We could have stabilised our population at 3.84 billion in 1972, leaving more space for ecosystems and a larger per capita share of resources for people. We could have replaced much of the infrastructure needed to make a transition to alternative fuel sources by now. But we didn’t do those things. Now, instead, nature is forcing us to live within the planet's limits through the usual mechanisms (e.g. epidemics, starvation, drought). 

The war torn Middle East (e.g. Syria, Iraq, Yemen) is a clear case of overpopulation, depleting resources (freshwater, oil) interacting with climate change (megadrought) and conflict over the remaining resources. These states were fragile to begin with (e.g. high inequality, lack of trust, lack of infrastructure) so even small perturbations were enough to push them over the edge. 

But even countries with a higher degree of resilience from the outset have started crumbling under the pressure of entropy in form of deflation (e.g. Greece, Italy, Japan). The downward trend is global. The collapse process, i.e. reduction in socioeconomic complexity, is already underway.

When soils become eroded, fresh water scarce, landscapes deforested, the air polluted and climate unstable, species either adapt, move or go extinct. Because the climate is changing so rapidly most species have a hard time adapting to new conditions. Evolution would have to occur 10,000 times faster than it typically does in order for most species to adapt and avoid extinction. And so they move instead, along with the shifting climatic zones. According to a 2011 study, species are now moving to higher elevations at a rate of 11.1 meters per decade and to higher latitudes at an average of 16.9 kilometres per decade. 

Life cycle events like mating, blooming and migrating that follow seasons are also changing. Mismatches in timing of births and food availability will inevitably lower population sizes of many species while pests and pathogens thrive due to warmer temperatures. Even if some species are able to migrate there are still many hinders (cities, high-ways etc.) on their way to territories where the competition for food will be tough. Highly specialised species and those who already live in the most northern regions might go extinct. For example, many Arctic species like the caribou, arctic fox and snowy owl are losing their habitat and the food they depend on at a rapid pace.

Human population mobility is not that different. For many of the poorest people of the world mobility is sometimes the only adaptive strategy available. Most sub Saharan African countries are finding it difficult to cope with existing climate stress, not to mention future climate change. Extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and storms have a direct impact on human migration patterns while long-term changes such as desertification and deforestation can lead to declining living standards that indirectly pushes people to move. Already at +0.85°C warming, since pre-industrial times, we see a drastic increase in the number of displaced people.

Furthermore, when essential resources become increasingly scarce or costly tensions rise and conflict can break out. In Syria a devastating drought forced millions of farmers to abandon their fields in search of alternative livelihoods in the city. And when food prices spiked in 2008 and 2011, along with oil prices, food riots and civil unrest broke out in a number of countries where people spend a large part of their income on food. Some of these conflicts have turned into full on wars which further reinforces migration.

According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) some 26.4 million people have been displaced by disasters (geophysical and weather related events) every year since 2008. The likelihood of being displaced by disaster today is 60% higher than it was in the early 1970s. The number of displaced people from natural disasters spiked during the strong El Niño years of 1997/98 which does not bode well for this winter and next year, with a similarly strong El Niño now taking shape. Losses from natural disasters and conflict increasingly outpaces the adaptive capacity of a growing number of people around the globe who are forced to relocate permanently. According to UNHCR, one in every 122 humans are now either a refugee, internally displaced or seeking asylum. The number of conflicts have increased during the last decade and 15 newly erupted or reignited conflicts have broken out since 2010.

Shows total people of concern (refugees, asylum-seekers, internally displaced, returnees, stateless, and others of concern to UNHCR) in 15 countries as of 2014. Based on UNHCR - Global Trends 2014: World At War

The conflict in Ukraine together with 502,500 people crossing the Mediterranean and the large number of Syrians in Turkey (1.59 million) has lead to a doubling of refugees in Europe between 2013-2014, according to the UN Refugee Agency. While Germany and Sweden accepted the biggest volume of asylum seekers the largest proportion of refugees are located in Turkey and the Russian Federation.

Most people in Europe, and elsewhere, are currently focused on issues of immigration with endless political debates and moral outrage in mainstream media. People think that we are experiencing a political crisis but it's much worse than that. Migration is only a symptom of the real underlying predicament - limits to growth in a finite world. As long as society tries to grow its population and economic activity we will continue to experience mounting social and ecological stresses, for example in form of: increasing inequality, disruptive climate change, mass migrations, hunger, epidemics etc. These pressures are warning signals that indicate overshoot, this is a fact, and yet we refuse to talk about limiting population growth or downsizing our economy (i.e. lowering our energy per capita consumption).

Irreversible change in carrying capacity means that a return to their homeland will be impossible for many refugees. Since ecological deficit is a global phenomenon, millions of ecorefugees will be seeking new locations. But very few places will have the biocapacity necessary to take them in without undermining their own ecological capital. Are there any lifeboats (nations) in suitable condition to accept ecorefugees on a long-term basis? 

If we have a quick look at different country's biocapacity as measured by the ecological footprint network we can see that Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, Russia, Latin America and parts of southern Africa still have (in theory) the ecological capacity to host more people. While most countries located around the equator are in serious overshoot. However, not all countries are in overshoot for the same reasons, for example, the UK is a tiny country in landmass and have to rely on imports for pure survival while the US has plenty of land and could in theory support itself but not with current per capita over consumption.

Eventually, resource depletion and biophysical stresses will grow so large that the economy and population will have to contract. This view is based on scientific evidence of population dynamics in a closed natural system. We can always hope for the best, but we better prepare for the worst, like any prudent risk manager would.

As most people probably have noticed by now, there is very little real wealth generation in today’s economy. Most of the economic activity these days consist of wealth transfers, from the poor and the middle class to the financial elite. This is why we see such huge and widening gaps between rich and poor (80 people own 50% of all global wealth). When the resource pie isn't growing anymore then one person's gains will always imply another ones loss, it's a zero-sum game.

Absent abundant, cheap energy (especially oil) the economy cannot grow and more people go broke and become excluded from the marketplace. Only the rich will be able to afford to keep on over consuming. Our society has tried to “paper over” this problem by piling up ever more debt (borrowing purchasing power from the future), but we have now reached a level when people cannot or are unwilling to take on more debt. And this is also why we see falling commodity prices, there just isn’t enough demand. Instead we have debt deflation. In time, depressed commodity prices could lead to falling supply which in turn could be devastating for food production and transportation. All the while pollution is growing and climate change becomes more severe.

Meanwhile, in Europe, social unrest and political extremism is on the rise once again. The so called “refugee crisis”, however, is neither temporary or political in nature. Ideologies like left or right-wing doesn’t matter anymore, only those who accept ecological limits and those who don't. We are simply too many people on a planet with a limited amount of natural resources and unstable climate. Now we have to share what’s left of the Earth’s riches, and people do not like it. Especially not the rich.

How forests and metals changed the country

During this time (1650-1800), Sweden changed it's property laws and went from public to private ownership of forests since forests were mainly used for household consumption, without clear ownership rules, and didn't generate any economic value. This changed forestry incentives.

Moreover, the little Ice Age, at its worst period in 1500-1600s, resulted in failed harvests and starvation that made European countries more aggressive towards their neighbours in attempts to expand their land area, as to grow more food. But the cool period also helped the Swedes in terms of enabling them to be able to cross the frozen sea from Germany and defeat Denmark in 1658.

Credit: Saperaud~commonswiki (CC-BY-SA 3.0)

According to Sundberg (1992) a typical forester and his family were self-sufficient on 2 hectares of farmland, 8 hectares of pasture and 40 hectares of forest which in turn generated some 760 GJ (or 211 MWh) of charcoal per year for the mines. That gives an EROI of roughly 4:1, i.e. very low return on investment, according to Hall (2015). As with all finite resources, the Swedish mines reached a peak in production in 1632, according to Sverdrup & Ragnarsdóttir (2014). Fifty six years later, in 1688, the Swedish Empire reached it's wealth peak, after which costs got larger until they exceeded wealth in 1712. Observed collapse occurred between 1732 and 1750.

Empire	Discovery peak	Resource Peak	Wealth Peak	Cost > Wealth	Collapse
Swedish	1520	1632	1688	1712	1732-1750

The biomass-backed system was sustainable as long as the forests were not overharvested, which did not occur until the middle of the 19th century, a time when many Swedes (1.3 million) left for America. During this time (1800-1850) the population had increased at a time when property prices were sky high and people started overharvesting the forests.

Source: SIFI

Today many experts estimate that Sweden has regained a forest area similar to that of the early 19th century, before the massive deforestation took place. Some 27,528,000 hectares, or 67% of the country is forested. However, it is a completely different type of forest. Only a few percentages (17%) of the old forest has been preserved, the rest is planted forest with much lower diversity of species and ages. Our forests are thus less resilient to shocks and disturbances, for example to climatic changes, something people hadn’t really noticed until the massive forest fire that broke out in Västmanland in 2014.

Sweden, the EU, and other nations are entering a period of enormous change. Population and economic growth are stagnating and will end. Current policies for social welfare are not designed to meet these challenges and there is a significant chance they will fail in achieving their set targets. Many western countries are now at a crossroads. They can either pursue old policies that depend on growth and fail, or decide that the end of growth gives them interesting new possibilities and have a chance to succeed.

1. LTG Business as Usual Scenario (dotted line) and historical data. Source: Turner (2014)

Time of great stresses

A) Rising resource costs

5. Changes in water-limited crop yield (2050). Source: European Environmental Agency

D) Growing population dependency ratio

6. Aging populations 2015 (left) 2030 (right). Source: CNNMoney

Potential Solutions?

Summary

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a regional free-trade agreement between the United States and some pacific countries. It threatens local economies self-determination over big corporations and any hope of a green trade deal that could ultimately do more to reduce carbon emissions. Critics have described the TPP as NAFTA on steriods (stoptpp.org) because of its focus on giving legal power to multinational corporations over nation states and their citizens. The proposed TPP is now, however, running into difficulties as the public learns more about it.

TPP is a proposed regional free-trade agreement that as of 2014 includes twelve countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region (see map below). These countries combined represents an economic power of more than 40% of the worlds GDP, making the TPP the largest economic trade agreement to date. The agreement started with discussions in 2005 and should have finished by 2012 but was delayed because of major controversies and outrage due to leakages of secret documents around Intellectual Property and Environment Chapters in the proposed agreement by WikiLeaks. The push for this kind of an trade agreement probably started as a alternative way to WTO negotiations after 12 years of stagnation, partly due to well-organized public resistance in many countries. At the moment U.S. corporate interests are driving the agenda of the TPP (The Guardian).  It is according to many commentators no coincidence that leftist Latin American governments and China has been left out of the agreement.

There has been extremely little transparency regarding the TPP negotiations. Few people have had access to the draft agreement and outermost secrecy has been in place. Large corporations and lobbyists, however, have been able to see chapters of the document. Thus when WikiLeaks first revealed parts of the TPP draft in November of 2013 many people and citizens rights groups got very upset. One part of the TPP which consist of giving corporations the right to directly sue governments for regulations that infringe upon profits or potential profits may explain why the TPP negotiators tried to hide the details from public awareness (Guardian, 2013). Because they knew it would evoke strong opposition, given the value people place in national sovereignty. Other parts of the draft, which have been leaked, includes:

The IP Chapter covers topics from pharmaceuticals, patent registrations and copyright issues to digital rights. Experts say it will affect freedom of information, civil liberties and access to medicines globally. The latest 77-page document is a working draft from the negotiations in Vietnam, dated 16 May 2014. The IP chapter of TPP would, if signed, effectively let corporations monitor citizens online activities, cut off peoples Internet access, delete content, impose fines and pursue stronger criminal regulations related to online copyright (ComputerWorld). It would end up instituting very controversial laws such as SOPA and PIPA that would restrict internet freedoms and free speech to the benefit of corporations. Overly protective patent laws on medicines and biological seeds etc. would also increase health care costs and farming practices and thus have a major impact on public health and food security, especially in poorer nations. 

The environmental chapter in the TPP does not require nations to follow legally binding environmental provisions or other global environmental treaties. Pollution controls could vary depending on a country's domestic circumstances and capabilities. The chapter shows how trade above all is promoted, beyond environmental goals and values, basically stating that local environmental laws are not to obstruct trade or investment between member countries. Furthermore there is an emphasis on “...flexible, voluntary mechanisms, such as voluntary auditing and reporting, market-based incentives, voluntary sharing of information and expertise and public-private partnership”, but that even such measures should be designed in a manner that “...avoids the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade” (WikiLeaks). At a time of worldwide environmental challenges (including species die-offs, dangerous pollution of the oceans and climate change) people would expect that trade could be a tool to protect the planet, not hasten ecological collapse. 

According to Noam Chomsky, the MIT professor, the TPP is not about "free trade" at all. He says “These are extreme, highly protectionist measures designed to undermine freedom of trade. In fact, much of what’s leaked about the TPP indicates that it’s not about trade at all, it’s about investor rights” (Huffington Post). Simply put, this proposed agreement protects corporations over citizens and profits over the environment. If signed, this agreement could further exacerbate economic inequalities and environmental degradation in many nations.

This will be my first post on this blog and while it is a bit long I really hope people have the energy to read at least some of it. I think this is an appropriate first post since the blog is called peak resources and deals with a broad topic (or interdisciplinary field) that was really only first acknowledged with the arrival of the book Limits to Growth. The post will go through some old facts and new discussions recently posted in a Guardian op-ed. 

In the book The Limits to Growth from 1972 a group of MIT scientists studied different scenarios and modeled likely outcomes in terms of population, food production and pollution etc. to gain insight to modern civilizations limiting factors for continued prosperity on planet Earth. The central argument of the book was simple: since the Earth is finite the quest for unlimited growth in population and material goods would eventually lead to a collapse (or breakdown) of society. In the "business as usual" (BAU) scenario the researchers assumed a growing population and demand for material wealth which in turn would lead to more industrial output, pollution and require ever increasing extraction of natural resources. Human civilization would then reach a first limiting factor at the point in time when resources started to become ever more expensive as they become harder to obtain (i.e. when it takes more energy/capital to extract the same amount of resources). Then, when more and more capital goes to resource extraction, industrial output per capita would start to fall. According to the book, following a business as usual scenario this could start occurring around 2015-2020. 

Well, this is what The Guardian op-ed by Turner and Alexander discusses. First of one should acknowledge that the authors of Limits to Growth updated their book in 1994 and 2004, comparing the scenarios with then up to date data for every parameter. Furthermore, G. Turner at CSIRO published a paper called "A comparison of 'The Limits to Growth' with Thirty Years of Reality" (2008), Hall and Day wrote "Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil" (2009), and U. Bardi (2011) and R. Heinberg (2011) have written books about Limits to Growth and its public reception. Updates or comparisons to the original study are nothing new to the academic world, but perhaps to the public. This could be the case since the original study was fiercely attacked by many economists who claimed that there could be no limit to human ingenuity and foresight and thus not to growth. Today there is still a general disliking of talking about limits to growth so many environmental scientists have rephrased the issue as "ensuring prosperity within a safe operating space" (Rockström et al. 2009).

In any case, the study discussed in The Guardian is the one released by G. Turner (2014) called ‘Is Global Collapse Imminent?’, MSSI Research Paper No. 4. The study builds on Turners previous updates, but this time takes a step further by discussing the importance of peak oil and whether the Global Financial Crisis could be viewed as a first sign of hitting the limits to growth. Indeed as Turner writes in the op-ed "Limits to Growth checks out with reality" (fig.1) meaning that we are following the business-as-usual trajectory (just as previous studies mentioned above also have concluded). Okey, nothing really new so far. But then Turner goes on to write "the first stages of decline may already have started". Here the issue of peak oil is critical. Why? Because the global economy is intimately tied to cheap and abundant oil. Another important indicator is debt levels. Unsustainable levels of debt means that if there is a sudden increase in oil prices then gas and food prices becomes more expensive and people cannot afford to e.g. pay their mortgage which could result in massive defaults. Many independent researchers conclude that "easy" conventional oil production (e.g. not inlcuding shale and tar sands) has already peaked (2005-2008). Even the conservative IEA has warned about peak oil. Turner therefore argues that peak oil could be the catalyst for global economic downturn.

However, no one really knows what will actually happen when resources starts to constrain economic growth. Wars and civil unrest could break out, economic inequality could rise, or there could simply be a slowing down of western countries economic growth. Many other possible scenarios could come about as a consequence of limited resources but there is a risk that these crises mask the real underlying issue of ecosystem degradation and so many conventional solutions will not work. To prevent a severe downturn and dampen potential serious ecological consequences we need to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle, relying less on fossil fuels and preserving critical ecosystem services and biodiversity for a resilient society in a future of abrupt change. This blog will deal with how to do this and the challenges we face. For more see topics.