Web Introduction

This book was published prior to the shale oil and gas boom in the US. The latter has served to keep the price of oil lower than expected but does not, however, change the conclusions of the book. More oil and gas only means more greenhouse gases and an acceleration of the global warming process, or at least a serious dampening of our efforts to slow it down.

Unlike oil, non-renewable minerals like iron ore, copper, and other metals do not have widely available substitutes. The problem for them remains the same.  Obviously, some statistics have changed--for example, Canada (not China) was the US biggest trading partner at the time of the writing... that is no longer the case. That being said, the trends and processes outlined in the books remain true.

We Are Still Going to Hit the Depletion Wall!

Resources, Population Growth, and Economic Collapse

We have seen how oil shortages can wreak havoc on the global economy and result in dramatic shifts in politics and regional balance of power.

Are other minerals close to being depleted? What impact would that have on the world economy and international politics? These are questions that The Depletion Wall attempts to answer. It is the second book of the Waves of the Future Series.

It bring us up to date on the latest mineral reserve data and years of supply. It also looks at model simulations to see what would happen when shortages of non-renewable resources begin to occur.

In the early 1970s, the Club of Rome ran interactive computer simulations (Model3) and released the results in a report called Limits to Growth. Model3's business-as-usual scenario pointed to a potential world collapse in the second half of this century. This was met with a lot of disbelief and criticism at the time.

But, is this really a possibility? The world economy has been relatively fragile for decades, being thrown off more than once by oil crises and almost collapsing more recently as a result of the global banking crisis.

Interestingly enough, a new study by Graham M. Turner compared statistics from 1970 to 2000 to see whether real world data would vindicate the Club of Rome or its critics. The results:

The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compare favorably

with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the “standard

run” scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway

through the 21st century. (A Comparison of The Limits to Growth With

30 Years of Reality)

Henderson's book analyzes the latest mineral reserve data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to see whether those also point in the same direction and reaches the same conclusion.

The book covers many more topics (historical examples and causes of social collapse, population growth forecasts, Malthusian theory and population growth cycles, economics of poverty, the wall effect of exponential growth, market size myths, depopulation economics and strategies, the aging baby boomer generation problem, etc.), non only to set arguments within context but also support and firmly establish conclusions:

While the symptoms have only begun to appear, the disease--which was diagnosed as far back as 1972 by the Club of Rome--is firmly established and will have deadly and dire consequences. At this point, even aggressive policies will only mitigate the consequences of four decades of neglect... but tough measures are better than a severe and prolong economic crisis or collapse.

==========================================

--- Background Issues ---

Degrowth (De-growth), Mineral Reserve Depletion, Population Growth, and Economic Crises/Recessions

The Depletion of Non-Renewable Resources

Can economic expansion continue indefinitely?  How much of the world's non-renewable mineral resources is really left? How do population and exponential growth affect the mineral supply equation? Are we heading for an economic crisis or collapse?

We have seen how oil shortages can wreak havoc on the global economy and result in dramatic shifts in the global balance of power.

Many people are now starting to realize that the dream of unlimited growth and economic expansion is coming to an end. The Depletion Wall argues that the age of consumerism will come to an abrupt stop. The reserves of many of the base metals on which society depends are shockingly low. The supply of economically exploitable reserves of many minerals ranges from only a few to several decades' worth.

The question is, is degrowth the answer to the problem of highly limited natural resources? Or, is it sustainable development?

Degrowth advocates argue that voluntary simplicity, reduced consumption, and decreased production and economic activity are the answer. They oppose sustainable development on the basis that it implies continued economic growth. Opponents of the degrowth option argue that decreasing consumption would increase unemployment and is unrealistic giving the level of poverty in many countries today.

The Depletion Wall argues that you can both maintain standards of living (or even increase them) while decreasing total economic production. 100$ (total production) divided by 10 people equals $10 each. But, so does $50 divided by 5 people. In this example, the total economic production decreases by 50%, but the per capita income remains $10/person! If the world's population decreases at the same time as economic production does, degrowth can occur without individual incomes decreasing. A faster depopulation rate would result in lower unemployment.

As The Depletion Wall demonstrates, a combination of population decrease and Green Economic Environment (Depopulation-GEE) could deliver degrowth and dramatically lower the world's environmental footprint, all of this while individual incomes remain the same or even increase. A Depopulation-GEE strategy would further result in lower unemployment.

A Depopulation-GEE strategy could keep individual incomes the same or growing while reducing the world's environmental and resource footprint as well as the total world production if desired.

The GEE is based on a greening of the economy, which comes as result of green growth in environmental sectors and degrowth for unenvironmental products and practices. This two-stream approach doubles the impact on a country's environmental footprint.

Green Growth, Degrowth (De-growth), Population Growth, and Economic Collapse

Many argue that economic growth is unsustainable. Are we headed for disaster?

Are green growth and sustainable development still the answer. Or, is degrowth now the only solution? The latest mineral reserve statistics are alarming.

Green Growth, Degrowth (De-growth), Natural Resources, and Population Growth

Current mineral depletion statistics point to dwindling resources, stiff price increases, and the prospect of serious economic troubles ahead.

Many are putting their hopes in green growth. This, in their view, could deliver development that is sustainable. However, no growth is perfectly green, and an increasing number of people now believe that degrowth is the answer, sustainable development itself believed to be unsustainable.

However, a decrease in world economic production would normally imply lower incomes and either shared employment or higher unemployment. While this might be acceptable in rich countries (albeit a difficult sell to voters), it has no hope of ever being a realistic option for countries that are significantly poorer.

Part of the answer lies in combining both green growth (in environmental sectors) and degrowth (for environmentally unfriendly goods), therefore doubling the positive effect of a given strategy. Every job lost in the non-green sectors would be made up by one created in a green sector. As such, a country's environmental footprint would decrease twice as fast without unemployment increasing or people being forced to share jobs.

However, given the advanced stage of depletion of reserves of many base metals, the above would not be enough. Combining green growth/degrowth with a depopulation strategy would address that problem. A 25% smaller population would consume 25% less resources--everything else being equal--and dramatically reduce a country's environmental footprint.

Furthermore, depopulation would make it possible for countries to maintain or even increase incomes--a 25% smaller world production divided by a 25% smaller production would result in the same per capita income. Both 4 pizzas divided by 4 people and 3 pizzas divided by 3 people equal one pizza each. A population reduction stronger (e.g. 20%) than a production decrease (e.g. 15%) would result in a higher income per person and lower unemployment.

The Depopulation-GEE strategy combines all three: green growth, degrowth, and population decrease. It is probably the most effective environmental strategy today, and one having the best hope of maintaining or increasing incomes in the long run.

More information: USGS Conservation International Sierra Club