At 03:15 pm 2/26/96 -0500, you wrote:
>One questions the work of the Gods of system dynamics (Forrester et al.)
>at extreme peril, but there were some major flaws with the original Club of
>Rome work as I recall.
>
>As I remember it, the key problem was the absence of a supply/demand
>mechanism as per economic theory.
>On the demand end, as resources grow scarcer, price increases. This
>decreases the demand in two ways; firstly by increasing the efficiency of
>resource utilization (eg. more energy efficient cars, better insulated
>houses) and through substitution of alternative sources of supply (eg.
>natural gas, electricity).
My understanding of the Limits to Growth is that it didnt include a market.
I *think* effects you mention above, however, were addressed:
- By the time resources become scarce enough to really be a measurable
problem, we wont have time to increase our efficiencies (refitting the
entire worlds industrial complex with new technology is a decades-long
project);
- The _Limits_ model aggregated all nonrenewable resources, thus assuming
that we were using them all up at an exponentially increasing rate. So
using substitutes only shifts the problem slightly (and, again, it would
take years to move an entire country to something like alcohol burning cars,
assuming that the infrastructure could be changed over at all);
- And there are other feedback loops in effect. If we manage to keep our
resource usage below the renewal rates of the available resource stocks (for
things like oil, this is unlikely), that only shifts the collapse to some
other part of the system. Decreased resource usage just lets us continue to
populate until we run out of farm land, pollute past the carrying capacity
of the atmosphere, etc.
====
I think that _Limit_s timescales may or may not be on target. But most of
the specific objections Ive heard to the study ("we have enough oil to last
for a century, so who cares about alternate energy sources") still fail to
address the underlying issues: that we are using resources faster than they
are being replenished, and we are destroying parts of our ecosystem with no
appreciation of long term effects we may be having. Those simply arent
sustainable indefinitely. Hopefully, the limits wont be reached in my
lifetime(*), but ...
- Stever
stever@verstek.com
(*) All this talk about an anti-aging drug just compounds the problem.
Imagine what happens to the "population" stock if you insert a step increase
into the value of "average lifetime."
Limits to Growth
-
jsterman@MIT.EDU (John Sterman)
- Senior Member
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Limits to Growth
Re Jonathan Segels comments on the Limits to Growth:
No doubt the World3 model has flaws, as do all models. Thus it is best
not to focus on that one model as the definitive statement, but
instead look at the cumulative stock of world models and see what
conclusions appear to be robust to different modeling methods and
underlying assumptions. The best statement on this is still Groping in
the Dark by Dana Meadows, Gerhart Bruckmann, and John Richardson (Wiley,
1980?). This book compares a dozen different global models built over
about a decade. The underlying conclusion of nearly all the models is
that present growth policies and trends are not leading to a sustainable
world, that the physical resources and environmental capacity to create
and maintain a sustainable world exist, and that the sooner the
transition is started, the more achievable it is. Something very like
this statement is the conclusion of the original LtG study, and not, as
many would have it, an unconditional prediction of doom. So lets focus
the discussion on broader consensus about the problems facing the world,
not just one model, and lets focus our efforts on the creation of a
sustainable society, not on whether there is a lot or a little oil left
in the ground.
Having said that, I also must add several comments about the WORLD3
model. The model does not include an *explicit* price system. But it
does include the price system implicitly. The gist of the critique
about the price system, as Jonathan correctly puts it, is that scarcity
causes higher prices which induce lower demand, development of
substitutes, and increased supply (as e.g. in the case of resources,
marginal deposits become economically viable). The model does not
include prices; ergo the model does not include the price system. The
model did not include the prices for resources, food, etc., but it does
include some of the price system feedbacks. In the model, for example,
when the supply of food begins to fall relative to demand, previously
undeveloped land is brought into production, boosting supply. In the
real world, the price of food would rise, making it possible to bring
marginal land into production. In the model the same outcome occurs,
but without an explicit food price variable. In this way, the
functioning of the market is captured, and the critique does not hold.
It is true that the base scenario does not include all possible market
processes, but most of these have been tried as policies. As documented
in Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World (and in Beyond the Limits), one
must assume that the market system is nearly perfect, with high demand
elasticity, high supply elasticity, flexible prices, no or only short
delays between the emergence of scarcity and the response of supply and
demand, and no side effects of new technology to generate a scenario in
which the forces of growth can continue without constraint and without
increasing the likelihood of overshoot and decline. These conditions do
not exist in the real world. Demand and supply elasticities for
individual goods may be high (as a result of substitution with other
individual commodoties), but the price elasticity of aggregate
consumption and aggregate supply is lower (since substitution of one
good for another leads to only a small change in aggregate consumption).
Likewise, if oil becomes scarce and expensive, we can substitute gas or
coal, but total energy supply changes much less than the consumption of
the individual fuels. Further, there are long delays in the response of
demand and supply to rising prices (cars last 10 years, the settlement
patterns that force most people to use cars to get from home to job or
school can change even more slowly...). Worse, government intervention
often short-circuits the market, as when price controls are imposed to
prevent consumers from having to pay high prices caused by scarcity.
The fact is that most markets are far from perfect. Finally, most of
the substitutes for resources that become scarce have side effects or
costs that are not internalized in the market system: we might reduce
CO2 emissions by greater use of nuclear power, but we then generate high
and low level wastes for which there is no acceptable permanent storage
site, create potential for accident and terrorism, etc., imposing
(delayed) costs that may outweigh the benefits. These costs are not
captured in the price of electricity or in the national accounts.
Finally, as pointed out in a previous message, the quantity of oil (or
any other nonrenewable) we know about or which is economically viable
can increase temporarily through exploration activity and improving
technology, but the amount of oil in the ground is monotonically
declining. No changes in technology or price can alter the inexorable
physics of the situation: oil is not being created at a meaningful rate
relative to the time frame of our civilization, and it is being used at
a high rate. Eventually, depletion must dominate price and technology
for all nonrenewables. When this will occur is debatable, but that it
will occur is not.
John Sterman
Sloan School of Management
MIT, E53-351
30 Wadsworth Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
phone: 617/253-1951 fax: 617/258-7579 e-mail: jsterman@mit.edu
No doubt the World3 model has flaws, as do all models. Thus it is best
not to focus on that one model as the definitive statement, but
instead look at the cumulative stock of world models and see what
conclusions appear to be robust to different modeling methods and
underlying assumptions. The best statement on this is still Groping in
the Dark by Dana Meadows, Gerhart Bruckmann, and John Richardson (Wiley,
1980?). This book compares a dozen different global models built over
about a decade. The underlying conclusion of nearly all the models is
that present growth policies and trends are not leading to a sustainable
world, that the physical resources and environmental capacity to create
and maintain a sustainable world exist, and that the sooner the
transition is started, the more achievable it is. Something very like
this statement is the conclusion of the original LtG study, and not, as
many would have it, an unconditional prediction of doom. So lets focus
the discussion on broader consensus about the problems facing the world,
not just one model, and lets focus our efforts on the creation of a
sustainable society, not on whether there is a lot or a little oil left
in the ground.
Having said that, I also must add several comments about the WORLD3
model. The model does not include an *explicit* price system. But it
does include the price system implicitly. The gist of the critique
about the price system, as Jonathan correctly puts it, is that scarcity
causes higher prices which induce lower demand, development of
substitutes, and increased supply (as e.g. in the case of resources,
marginal deposits become economically viable). The model does not
include prices; ergo the model does not include the price system. The
model did not include the prices for resources, food, etc., but it does
include some of the price system feedbacks. In the model, for example,
when the supply of food begins to fall relative to demand, previously
undeveloped land is brought into production, boosting supply. In the
real world, the price of food would rise, making it possible to bring
marginal land into production. In the model the same outcome occurs,
but without an explicit food price variable. In this way, the
functioning of the market is captured, and the critique does not hold.
It is true that the base scenario does not include all possible market
processes, but most of these have been tried as policies. As documented
in Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World (and in Beyond the Limits), one
must assume that the market system is nearly perfect, with high demand
elasticity, high supply elasticity, flexible prices, no or only short
delays between the emergence of scarcity and the response of supply and
demand, and no side effects of new technology to generate a scenario in
which the forces of growth can continue without constraint and without
increasing the likelihood of overshoot and decline. These conditions do
not exist in the real world. Demand and supply elasticities for
individual goods may be high (as a result of substitution with other
individual commodoties), but the price elasticity of aggregate
consumption and aggregate supply is lower (since substitution of one
good for another leads to only a small change in aggregate consumption).
Likewise, if oil becomes scarce and expensive, we can substitute gas or
coal, but total energy supply changes much less than the consumption of
the individual fuels. Further, there are long delays in the response of
demand and supply to rising prices (cars last 10 years, the settlement
patterns that force most people to use cars to get from home to job or
school can change even more slowly...). Worse, government intervention
often short-circuits the market, as when price controls are imposed to
prevent consumers from having to pay high prices caused by scarcity.
The fact is that most markets are far from perfect. Finally, most of
the substitutes for resources that become scarce have side effects or
costs that are not internalized in the market system: we might reduce
CO2 emissions by greater use of nuclear power, but we then generate high
and low level wastes for which there is no acceptable permanent storage
site, create potential for accident and terrorism, etc., imposing
(delayed) costs that may outweigh the benefits. These costs are not
captured in the price of electricity or in the national accounts.
Finally, as pointed out in a previous message, the quantity of oil (or
any other nonrenewable) we know about or which is economically viable
can increase temporarily through exploration activity and improving
technology, but the amount of oil in the ground is monotonically
declining. No changes in technology or price can alter the inexorable
physics of the situation: oil is not being created at a meaningful rate
relative to the time frame of our civilization, and it is being used at
a high rate. Eventually, depletion must dominate price and technology
for all nonrenewables. When this will occur is debatable, but that it
will occur is not.
John Sterman
Sloan School of Management
MIT, E53-351
30 Wadsworth Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
phone: 617/253-1951 fax: 617/258-7579 e-mail: jsterman@mit.edu
-
gallaher@teleport.com (Ed Gallah
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Limits to Growth
2/27/96 Stever Robbins wrote:
<snip>
>
>I think that _Limit_s timescales may or may not be on target. But most of
>the specific objections Ive heard to the study ("we have enough oil to last
>for a century, so who cares about alternate energy sources") still fail to
>address the underlying issues: that we are using resources faster than they
>are being replenished, and we are destroying parts of our ecosystem with no
>appreciation of long term effects we may be having. Those simply arent
>sustainable indefinitely. Hopefully, the limits wont be reached in my
>lifetime(*), but ...
>
Regardless of the details in Limits, SR raises THE critical issue; using up
resources faster than they are being depleted.
Re the estimates of the worlds oil reserves: Lets consider the known
reserves as one stock, and unknown reserves as a second stock. As oil is
discovered it moves from the unknown to the known stock. We are using oil
from the known stock, and to the best of our knowledge, we are not
replenishing one stock or the other. Therefore, we are going to run out!
In the Pacific NW there is a great deal of discussion about spotted owls,
as if they are leading to the demise of the logging industry. The fact is,
when the trees are gone, it wont matter whether we consider spotted owls
or not. You cant have a logging industry with no trees!
If youve ever been to Ireland, it is beautiful! But there are no trees,
and therefore, no logging industry..... There once was trees; now there
are sheep.
(However, the beer, the music, and the hospitality are fantastic.)
ed gallaher
gallaher@teleport.com
<snip>
>
>I think that _Limit_s timescales may or may not be on target. But most of
>the specific objections Ive heard to the study ("we have enough oil to last
>for a century, so who cares about alternate energy sources") still fail to
>address the underlying issues: that we are using resources faster than they
>are being replenished, and we are destroying parts of our ecosystem with no
>appreciation of long term effects we may be having. Those simply arent
>sustainable indefinitely. Hopefully, the limits wont be reached in my
>lifetime(*), but ...
>
Regardless of the details in Limits, SR raises THE critical issue; using up
resources faster than they are being depleted.
Re the estimates of the worlds oil reserves: Lets consider the known
reserves as one stock, and unknown reserves as a second stock. As oil is
discovered it moves from the unknown to the known stock. We are using oil
from the known stock, and to the best of our knowledge, we are not
replenishing one stock or the other. Therefore, we are going to run out!
In the Pacific NW there is a great deal of discussion about spotted owls,
as if they are leading to the demise of the logging industry. The fact is,
when the trees are gone, it wont matter whether we consider spotted owls
or not. You cant have a logging industry with no trees!
If youve ever been to Ireland, it is beautiful! But there are no trees,
and therefore, no logging industry..... There once was trees; now there
are sheep.
(However, the beer, the music, and the hospitality are fantastic.)
ed gallaher
gallaher@teleport.com
-
system-dynamics-approval@facteur
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Limits to Growth
Hi Everyone,
Sender: system-dynamics-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: system-dynamics
It is interesting to note that the discussion on the Limits to Growth has
not changed much in 20 years. I hope that what has been posted has been
informative. There have been some interesting methodological points made
and it is clear (I guess it was always obvious) that there are still some
pretty big gaps in the way people approach really big issues.
I hope we dont get too carried away with this. Dana Meadows has often
described this debate as generating more heat than light. We should try
to hold ourselves to the enlightenment standard.
Jerry Pournelle, a science fiction writer and columnist for Byte, has
always been a great disadvocate of the Limits work. He has, however,
openly stated that it would be useful if people could play with these
models themselves. That is now possible.
I am attaching a message describing the availability of the World3 model
in Powersim. It is also included in the Vensim demo disk, as a
microworld. (The World Dynamics model is also included). (To get at these
http://www.std.com or send email to vensim@world.std.com). Another
message mentioned a hypercard implementation and Dennis Meadows has had
and probably still has, a Stella implementation and another that will
run on any 8088 and higher PC available at a nominal cost (Dennis Meadows,
Laboratory for Interactive Learning, IPSSR - Hood House UNH, Durham NH
03824).
Bob Eberlein
vensim@world.std.com
------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:04:50 +-100
From: Rhoderick van der WYCK <twofold@wirehub.nl>
To: system-dynamics-approval <system-dynamics-approval@facteur.std.com>
Subject: Re: Limits to Growth
Paul,
There is a MFS (management flight simulator) which has been created as a
result of the work of the Club of Rome. The model has been made with
Powersim, a SD modelling tool, and is referred to as the World5 model.
The model is one of the softwares demo models. We in the Netherlands
are a consultancy which specializes in building such MFS to support
decision making in the broadest sense. Our main experiences have been
focused around human resource and finance models.
You bring up an interesting point when you say that "it could be used in
schools and community groups". In Norway where the software was and is
being developed, Powersim and Systems Thinking has become part of the
middle school mandatory curriculum.
If you should have any further questions feel free to send me a message.
Rhoderick van der Wyck
Consultant
Oasis Process Consulting
tel +31 30 6066336
fax +31 30 6065844
rvdwyck@mailhost.net
Sender: system-dynamics-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: system-dynamics
It is interesting to note that the discussion on the Limits to Growth has
not changed much in 20 years. I hope that what has been posted has been
informative. There have been some interesting methodological points made
and it is clear (I guess it was always obvious) that there are still some
pretty big gaps in the way people approach really big issues.
I hope we dont get too carried away with this. Dana Meadows has often
described this debate as generating more heat than light. We should try
to hold ourselves to the enlightenment standard.
Jerry Pournelle, a science fiction writer and columnist for Byte, has
always been a great disadvocate of the Limits work. He has, however,
openly stated that it would be useful if people could play with these
models themselves. That is now possible.
I am attaching a message describing the availability of the World3 model
in Powersim. It is also included in the Vensim demo disk, as a
microworld. (The World Dynamics model is also included). (To get at these
http://www.std.com or send email to vensim@world.std.com). Another
message mentioned a hypercard implementation and Dennis Meadows has had
and probably still has, a Stella implementation and another that will
run on any 8088 and higher PC available at a nominal cost (Dennis Meadows,
Laboratory for Interactive Learning, IPSSR - Hood House UNH, Durham NH
03824).
Bob Eberlein
vensim@world.std.com
------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:04:50 +-100
From: Rhoderick van der WYCK <twofold@wirehub.nl>
To: system-dynamics-approval <system-dynamics-approval@facteur.std.com>
Subject: Re: Limits to Growth
Paul,
There is a MFS (management flight simulator) which has been created as a
result of the work of the Club of Rome. The model has been made with
Powersim, a SD modelling tool, and is referred to as the World5 model.
The model is one of the softwares demo models. We in the Netherlands
are a consultancy which specializes in building such MFS to support
decision making in the broadest sense. Our main experiences have been
focused around human resource and finance models.
You bring up an interesting point when you say that "it could be used in
schools and community groups". In Norway where the software was and is
being developed, Powersim and Systems Thinking has become part of the
middle school mandatory curriculum.
If you should have any further questions feel free to send me a message.
Rhoderick van der Wyck
Consultant
Oasis Process Consulting
tel +31 30 6066336
fax +31 30 6065844
rvdwyck@mailhost.net
-
GONZALEZ H SERGIO A
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
limits to growth
About your article "Critique of limits to growth" {Wayne
Wakeland}, Im wondering if you can run a reliable model of tendencies of
growth, without backed up data, and if you do, how reliable this model
can be?.
In your article you wrote that the article "System Dinamics|
Measurement without Data" should be compulsory reading for all would-be
modelers, and because Im only beginner in modelling, I will appreciate
if you could send me more information of where I can find this article. I
would like to be able to read it.
Gonzales H Sergio
al324759@campus.leo.itesm.mx
Wakeland}, Im wondering if you can run a reliable model of tendencies of
growth, without backed up data, and if you do, how reliable this model
can be?.
In your article you wrote that the article "System Dinamics|
Measurement without Data" should be compulsory reading for all would-be
modelers, and because Im only beginner in modelling, I will appreciate
if you could send me more information of where I can find this article. I
would like to be able to read it.
Gonzales H Sergio
al324759@campus.leo.itesm.mx
-
wakeland@ccgate.leupstv.com
- Junior Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
limits to growth
NOTE TO THE LIST: I am sending this to the list as well as Mr.
Gonzales due to the recent "vote" indicating that list members
want to see responses even to requests made to specific
individuals.
Mr Gonzales--
This information was posted to the list about 6 weeks ago. The
orginal article is:
Bill Nordhaus "World Dynamics: Measurement without data,"The
Economic Journal, Dec. 1973.
A rebuttal to this article was also written:
Forrester, J. W., Mass, N. J., & Low, G. W. (1974). The Debate
on World Dynamics: A Response to Nordhaus. Policy Sciences,
5(2), 169-190.
This article should also be read by anyone who reads the
Nordhaus article.
By the way, as you may have seen, my comment triggered a strong
negative reaction from the S-D community (including the comment:
"Lets keep unsubstantiated generalizations out of the discourse
on these issues and focus on documented specifics"). I
corresponded privately with John Sterman to clarify the basis
for my comment, and we had a productive dialog. John offered to
post the exchange, but I did not ask him to do so. If others
would like to see my email to him and his response, let me know,
and Ill post them.
Regarding your comment on the reliability of models: in my
opinion, model "reliability" is strongly correlated with the
degree to which relevant data is available and properly
utilized. This does not mean that one should only build models
when there is good data, but rather that one should recognize
that models built w/o proper data cannot be assumed to be as
solid and reliable as those that are.
--Wayne Wakeland
wakeland@ccgate.leupstv.com
Gonzales due to the recent "vote" indicating that list members
want to see responses even to requests made to specific
individuals.
Mr Gonzales--
This information was posted to the list about 6 weeks ago. The
orginal article is:
Bill Nordhaus "World Dynamics: Measurement without data,"The
Economic Journal, Dec. 1973.
A rebuttal to this article was also written:
Forrester, J. W., Mass, N. J., & Low, G. W. (1974). The Debate
on World Dynamics: A Response to Nordhaus. Policy Sciences,
5(2), 169-190.
This article should also be read by anyone who reads the
Nordhaus article.
By the way, as you may have seen, my comment triggered a strong
negative reaction from the S-D community (including the comment:
"Lets keep unsubstantiated generalizations out of the discourse
on these issues and focus on documented specifics"). I
corresponded privately with John Sterman to clarify the basis
for my comment, and we had a productive dialog. John offered to
post the exchange, but I did not ask him to do so. If others
would like to see my email to him and his response, let me know,
and Ill post them.
Regarding your comment on the reliability of models: in my
opinion, model "reliability" is strongly correlated with the
degree to which relevant data is available and properly
utilized. This does not mean that one should only build models
when there is good data, but rather that one should recognize
that models built w/o proper data cannot be assumed to be as
solid and reliable as those that are.
--Wayne Wakeland
wakeland@ccgate.leupstv.com
-
saeed@ait.ac.th (Prof Khalid Sae
- Junior Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
limits to growth
As someone who has very diligently gone over the various versions of the
world model and its critiques, I have been following the discussion on the
Limits study with interest. I still continue to value highly the
contributions made by the Limits study almost a quarter of a century before
the environmental problems entered the awareness domain.
The study does have limitation in that it did not attempt to operationalize
the entry points it discovered, but I suppose this was not its intent. Mr.
Acharya and I presented a paper at the Tokyo SD conference attempting an
operational interpretation. It is titled:
A Search for an Operational Environmental Policy Based on the Limits to
Growth Study.
We are currently working on an extensive revision of the paper for the SDR,
but the original paper is in the 95 conference proceedings and might be of
interest to those of you interested in the subject.
Khalid
saeed@ait.ac.th
Professor Khalid Saeed
Infrastructure Planning & Management
School of Civil Engineering
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
G.P.O. Box 2754, Bangkok, THAILAND
phones: (66-2)524-5681, (66-2)524-5785; fax: (66-2)524-5776
world model and its critiques, I have been following the discussion on the
Limits study with interest. I still continue to value highly the
contributions made by the Limits study almost a quarter of a century before
the environmental problems entered the awareness domain.
The study does have limitation in that it did not attempt to operationalize
the entry points it discovered, but I suppose this was not its intent. Mr.
Acharya and I presented a paper at the Tokyo SD conference attempting an
operational interpretation. It is titled:
A Search for an Operational Environmental Policy Based on the Limits to
Growth Study.
We are currently working on an extensive revision of the paper for the SDR,
but the original paper is in the 95 conference proceedings and might be of
interest to those of you interested in the subject.
Khalid
saeed@ait.ac.th
Professor Khalid Saeed
Infrastructure Planning & Management
School of Civil Engineering
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
G.P.O. Box 2754, Bangkok, THAILAND
phones: (66-2)524-5681, (66-2)524-5785; fax: (66-2)524-5776
-
gallaher@teleport.com (Ed Gallah
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
limits to growth
> By the way, as you may have seen, my comment triggered a strong
> negative reaction from the S-D community. ... I
> corresponded privately with John Sterman... and we had a productive dialog.
I would appreciate seeing this exchange posted. Or perhaps an edited and
paraphrased summary.
[Hosts note: this discussion was posted yesterday]
It is an interesting an important point.
In the absence of further information I was left with the notion that
Sterman was castigating Wakeland, and that Wakeland went away licking his
wounds and/or rolled over and played dead. (I seriously doubted this,
because I know Wayne quite well, and by reputation I know Sterman; both are
more interested in discussion and in resolution than in polemics).
This emphasizes why issues that are raised should be resolved in public on
the list, rather than by private dialogue. (With able moderation by Bob
Eberlein, and avoiding flame wars, of course.)
Ed Gallaher
gallaher@mail.teleport.com
> negative reaction from the S-D community. ... I
> corresponded privately with John Sterman... and we had a productive dialog.
I would appreciate seeing this exchange posted. Or perhaps an edited and
paraphrased summary.
[Hosts note: this discussion was posted yesterday]
It is an interesting an important point.
In the absence of further information I was left with the notion that
Sterman was castigating Wakeland, and that Wakeland went away licking his
wounds and/or rolled over and played dead. (I seriously doubted this,
because I know Wayne quite well, and by reputation I know Sterman; both are
more interested in discussion and in resolution than in polemics).
This emphasizes why issues that are raised should be resolved in public on
the list, rather than by private dialogue. (With able moderation by Bob
Eberlein, and avoiding flame wars, of course.)
Ed Gallaher
gallaher@mail.teleport.com
-
Monus@facteur.std.com, Paul@fact
- Junior Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Limits to Growth
I was reading _Limits to Growth_ over the weekend, and found it a
fascinating read. I had heard about this book prior, but had never taken
the time to really read it carefully until now.
I am sure the readers of this list know much about this study, and maybe
helped with it. So, I would like to ask a couple of questions that came to
me during my read of it:
1. Have followup reports/studies been conducted since the original
publication comparing predicted trends to what actually happened, and if so
where are these located? I would like to read more.
Does the Club of Rome still exist, and it is publishing on its work and
findings?
2. Has a microworld or experiential flight simulator been created from
this work, that could be
used in schools or communities? My sense from reading the book is that
since many of the findings result in a call to action, and are threatening,
the tendency amoung most people would be to deny and then cover up their
denial. A microworld might be a way to engage the issues more widely. If
one doesnt exist, maybe it should. This could be used in schools and
community groups.
Fishbanks seems to be a good start towards this. Has anyone connected
Fishbanks to _Limits to Growth_ ?
3. Assumptions around what would change or limit the tendency for
exponential growth seems to be a fertile area for continued discussion.
Since the problem seems to falls under the tragedy of the commons
archetype, then what will be the reconciling force for the earth to bring
all the separate entities together under a more effective policy? It seems
that this implies a need for a world government or at least an enforceable
world agreement that sets policy. Was this implicit in the Club of Romes
thinking? And was this the key undiscussable that caused rejection of the
findings?
4. Davidson, Sterman, and Richardson wrote in SDR No. 1 Winter 1990 about
a model for petroleum exploration, recovery, and demand that suggests an
upper limit will be reached before 2100 (as predicted in the Club of Romes
study), and petroleum substitutes will be economically justified vs. the
higher price of oil. My read of this paper was that it "felt right" as well
as made sense.
5. The Chairman of the company I work for (BP Oil) has taken a position
against the Club of Romes view on Petroleum supply. To quote from a speech
given to the Oxford Energy Seminar 7 Sept. 1995 (John Browne), he says
page 6: "Just 23 years ago this month, a group of scientists published a
paper which became known as the Club of Rome report. It is worth
re-reading, if only to appreciate the transient nature of some elements of
public debate. It argued, of course, that resources were limited and that
the world was running out of oil. It is worth noting, perhaps, that since
its publication the world has produced and consumed something like 475
billion barrels, but that the reserves at the end of 1994 were in fact some
50% higher than they were at the end of 1972."
... stuff omitted...
"So the industry has lived in an environment of almost constant change, with
an almost constant chorus of doom-laden predictions. But despite all that,
the industry is alive and well, and in many areas it is thriving."
... stuff omitted...
page 7: "... past survival is no guarantee of the future. I do not have much
doubt that the industry as a whole will survive in some form and will almost
certainly adapt and adjust to secure its own future."
... stuff omitted...
page 9: "... demand seems certain to continue to rise -- reaching 70
million barrels next year and exceeding 80 million barrels soon after 2000.
That is even on optimistic assumptions on improving fuel efficiency."
... stuff omitted...
"Does the world have sufficient oil to meet growing demand? The answer is a
very clear yes. At the World Petroleum Congress last year, one leading
expert put the range of original world oil reserves at between 2,000 and
2,800 billion barrels. That is quite a broad range; but the key point is
that, even if you take the number at the bottom of the range, less than a
third of the total has been developed and produced. Another 1,100 billion
barrels is under development; another 1,100 billion is discovered but
undeveloped; and anything from 300 billion and 1,000 billion has still to be
found. It is worth stressing that those are conservative estimates. The
figure of what is yet to be found could be much higher."
Then Mr. Browne goes on to talk of technology developments that make this
possible.
A point to note here is that the Sterman
ichardson estimate in Journal of
Forecasting Vol. 4 197-226 (1985) _An experiment to evaluate methods fo
estimating fossil fuel resources_ was much higher = 5000 billion barrels of
original reserves. If you add Brownes figures of 2,800 plus 1,100 plus
1,100 discovered but not developed, plus 1,000 to be found it totals 6,000
billion barrels total. The low end of the range would subtract 1,500
barrels giving a low end estimate of 4,500 billion barrels. So, Sterman and
Richardsons value seems reasonable and within the range cited by Mr.
Browne.
On page 13, Browne takes up the issue of supply and price. He comments
about the impact of OPEC and Environmental controls, and then concludes on
pages 15-16 that "The solution lies in adjustment to the reality of the
situation -- and, in particular, the reality of the need to make investment
flexible and responsive to the level of demand in the market."
... stuff omitted...
On page 18 Browne concludes by saying that "confrontation is not the right
way to proceed. Dialogue and cooperation are essential. Dialogue does not
guarantee a solution, of course, and there will be failures. We might not
always succeed, but we must not fail to try. As society defines the balance
between the provision of energy and the protection of the environment -- we
must also define how the costs of the new standards are to be met, and how
they are going to be distributed between the final consumer and the general
taxpayer. ... stuff omitted... The industry has had a lot thrown at it
over the last 100 years -- but it is still in business and it still makes
money. So long as we are humble enough to accept reality and to avoid the
complacency of wishful thinking, I am sure the next 100 years will be even
better."
I thought Mr. Brownes writeup indicated a thoughtful and open consideration
of the ideas and needs facing us as an industry. He has clearly thought
about the Club of Rome report, and concluded not to worry about the limits
to growth in our industry, but to focus on economical development of oil for
the worlds needs for the next 100 years.
I would be open to hearing how people with a System Dynamics perspective
feel about Mr. Brownes comments, and how I might work within this company
to raise this important issue to the thought leaders here. This is the
central reason why I asked about the Club of Rome report updates and a
microworld.
I accept the concept that, if unchecked, exponential growth will overwhelm
all finite resources, no matter how vast. Even with all the oil cited by
Sterman
ichardson and confirmed by Brownes speech, if growth goes on
unchecked at SOME point in the future it will lead to the bad dynamics noted
that the world cannot manage. This questions seems to me to still be open;
it is only the timeline -- how soon, that is the debate. Unless we do
something together to address the central problem on unchecked exponential
growth at some point it seems we will face the issues raised in _Limits to
Growth._
If the SD community feels that the central premise of _Limits to Growth_
still are valid, and if further work on the ideas has been going on, how do
we bring these ideas to the attention of those in a position to do something
about it?
I dont think the world nor the key leaders in industries like the one I
work in buy the premise of _Limits to Growth_, and thus no action or very
minor actions are being taken now. What do you all think about this?
6. On the good side, the EPA being so tough on us has produced some major
benefits. In the past 8 years the overall complex where I work (which
includes BP Lima Chemicals and BP Oil Lima Refinery, a large industrial
complex with invested capital of about 1.6 billion dollars) has reduced its
SARA TRI emissions* by the following values:
--47% reduction in air emissions since 1987
--89% reduction in water discharges since 1987
--80% overall reduction since 1987 (including a major reduction due to
rule changes in how the numbers are calculated)
These improvements in the environment came by capital investment, and by
continuous improvement/waste minimization and some revised operating
policies. Higher reliability means lower startup and shutdown releases.
In talking to our Manager of Health, Safety, and the Environment, he
commented that in Ohio this type of improvement rate on SARA TRI data is
typical for the industries here. So, most industry here in Ohio seems to be
doing better than 1987, with 40% or less emitted now being typical.
Is this enough? Who knows. But it is a good start to have this type of
improvement record on waste minimization and hazardous waste emissions. And
we seek to continuous reduce these emissions into the future.
One key in the _Limits to Growth_ framework is to make these improvements
now, while there is time, and to understand the long term cost of not making
these improvements. For this to be meaningful, it is vital to get everyone,
including the non US plants who dont have the stricter environmental rules,
to be making these same improvements. It must be a global thing.
Comments welcome.
Paul Monus
BP Oil Lima Refinery
monuspa@olima.usaref.msnet.bp.com
* SARA TRI is nomenclature for the Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act
Toxic Release Inventory (328 chemicals are on this list counted thru 1995,
with 286 additional chemicals to be addd to the list in 1996)
fascinating read. I had heard about this book prior, but had never taken
the time to really read it carefully until now.
I am sure the readers of this list know much about this study, and maybe
helped with it. So, I would like to ask a couple of questions that came to
me during my read of it:
1. Have followup reports/studies been conducted since the original
publication comparing predicted trends to what actually happened, and if so
where are these located? I would like to read more.
Does the Club of Rome still exist, and it is publishing on its work and
findings?
2. Has a microworld or experiential flight simulator been created from
this work, that could be
used in schools or communities? My sense from reading the book is that
since many of the findings result in a call to action, and are threatening,
the tendency amoung most people would be to deny and then cover up their
denial. A microworld might be a way to engage the issues more widely. If
one doesnt exist, maybe it should. This could be used in schools and
community groups.
Fishbanks seems to be a good start towards this. Has anyone connected
Fishbanks to _Limits to Growth_ ?
3. Assumptions around what would change or limit the tendency for
exponential growth seems to be a fertile area for continued discussion.
Since the problem seems to falls under the tragedy of the commons
archetype, then what will be the reconciling force for the earth to bring
all the separate entities together under a more effective policy? It seems
that this implies a need for a world government or at least an enforceable
world agreement that sets policy. Was this implicit in the Club of Romes
thinking? And was this the key undiscussable that caused rejection of the
findings?
4. Davidson, Sterman, and Richardson wrote in SDR No. 1 Winter 1990 about
a model for petroleum exploration, recovery, and demand that suggests an
upper limit will be reached before 2100 (as predicted in the Club of Romes
study), and petroleum substitutes will be economically justified vs. the
higher price of oil. My read of this paper was that it "felt right" as well
as made sense.
5. The Chairman of the company I work for (BP Oil) has taken a position
against the Club of Romes view on Petroleum supply. To quote from a speech
given to the Oxford Energy Seminar 7 Sept. 1995 (John Browne), he says
page 6: "Just 23 years ago this month, a group of scientists published a
paper which became known as the Club of Rome report. It is worth
re-reading, if only to appreciate the transient nature of some elements of
public debate. It argued, of course, that resources were limited and that
the world was running out of oil. It is worth noting, perhaps, that since
its publication the world has produced and consumed something like 475
billion barrels, but that the reserves at the end of 1994 were in fact some
50% higher than they were at the end of 1972."
... stuff omitted...
"So the industry has lived in an environment of almost constant change, with
an almost constant chorus of doom-laden predictions. But despite all that,
the industry is alive and well, and in many areas it is thriving."
... stuff omitted...
page 7: "... past survival is no guarantee of the future. I do not have much
doubt that the industry as a whole will survive in some form and will almost
certainly adapt and adjust to secure its own future."
... stuff omitted...
page 9: "... demand seems certain to continue to rise -- reaching 70
million barrels next year and exceeding 80 million barrels soon after 2000.
That is even on optimistic assumptions on improving fuel efficiency."
... stuff omitted...
"Does the world have sufficient oil to meet growing demand? The answer is a
very clear yes. At the World Petroleum Congress last year, one leading
expert put the range of original world oil reserves at between 2,000 and
2,800 billion barrels. That is quite a broad range; but the key point is
that, even if you take the number at the bottom of the range, less than a
third of the total has been developed and produced. Another 1,100 billion
barrels is under development; another 1,100 billion is discovered but
undeveloped; and anything from 300 billion and 1,000 billion has still to be
found. It is worth stressing that those are conservative estimates. The
figure of what is yet to be found could be much higher."
Then Mr. Browne goes on to talk of technology developments that make this
possible.
A point to note here is that the Sterman
ichardson estimate in Journal of
Forecasting Vol. 4 197-226 (1985) _An experiment to evaluate methods fo
estimating fossil fuel resources_ was much higher = 5000 billion barrels of
original reserves. If you add Brownes figures of 2,800 plus 1,100 plus
1,100 discovered but not developed, plus 1,000 to be found it totals 6,000
billion barrels total. The low end of the range would subtract 1,500
barrels giving a low end estimate of 4,500 billion barrels. So, Sterman and
Richardsons value seems reasonable and within the range cited by Mr.
Browne.
On page 13, Browne takes up the issue of supply and price. He comments
about the impact of OPEC and Environmental controls, and then concludes on
pages 15-16 that "The solution lies in adjustment to the reality of the
situation -- and, in particular, the reality of the need to make investment
flexible and responsive to the level of demand in the market."
... stuff omitted...
On page 18 Browne concludes by saying that "confrontation is not the right
way to proceed. Dialogue and cooperation are essential. Dialogue does not
guarantee a solution, of course, and there will be failures. We might not
always succeed, but we must not fail to try. As society defines the balance
between the provision of energy and the protection of the environment -- we
must also define how the costs of the new standards are to be met, and how
they are going to be distributed between the final consumer and the general
taxpayer. ... stuff omitted... The industry has had a lot thrown at it
over the last 100 years -- but it is still in business and it still makes
money. So long as we are humble enough to accept reality and to avoid the
complacency of wishful thinking, I am sure the next 100 years will be even
better."
I thought Mr. Brownes writeup indicated a thoughtful and open consideration
of the ideas and needs facing us as an industry. He has clearly thought
about the Club of Rome report, and concluded not to worry about the limits
to growth in our industry, but to focus on economical development of oil for
the worlds needs for the next 100 years.
I would be open to hearing how people with a System Dynamics perspective
feel about Mr. Brownes comments, and how I might work within this company
to raise this important issue to the thought leaders here. This is the
central reason why I asked about the Club of Rome report updates and a
microworld.
I accept the concept that, if unchecked, exponential growth will overwhelm
all finite resources, no matter how vast. Even with all the oil cited by
Sterman
ichardson and confirmed by Brownes speech, if growth goes on
unchecked at SOME point in the future it will lead to the bad dynamics noted
that the world cannot manage. This questions seems to me to still be open;
it is only the timeline -- how soon, that is the debate. Unless we do
something together to address the central problem on unchecked exponential
growth at some point it seems we will face the issues raised in _Limits to
Growth._
If the SD community feels that the central premise of _Limits to Growth_
still are valid, and if further work on the ideas has been going on, how do
we bring these ideas to the attention of those in a position to do something
about it?
I dont think the world nor the key leaders in industries like the one I
work in buy the premise of _Limits to Growth_, and thus no action or very
minor actions are being taken now. What do you all think about this?
6. On the good side, the EPA being so tough on us has produced some major
benefits. In the past 8 years the overall complex where I work (which
includes BP Lima Chemicals and BP Oil Lima Refinery, a large industrial
complex with invested capital of about 1.6 billion dollars) has reduced its
SARA TRI emissions* by the following values:
--47% reduction in air emissions since 1987
--89% reduction in water discharges since 1987
--80% overall reduction since 1987 (including a major reduction due to
rule changes in how the numbers are calculated)
These improvements in the environment came by capital investment, and by
continuous improvement/waste minimization and some revised operating
policies. Higher reliability means lower startup and shutdown releases.
In talking to our Manager of Health, Safety, and the Environment, he
commented that in Ohio this type of improvement rate on SARA TRI data is
typical for the industries here. So, most industry here in Ohio seems to be
doing better than 1987, with 40% or less emitted now being typical.
Is this enough? Who knows. But it is a good start to have this type of
improvement record on waste minimization and hazardous waste emissions. And
we seek to continuous reduce these emissions into the future.
One key in the _Limits to Growth_ framework is to make these improvements
now, while there is time, and to understand the long term cost of not making
these improvements. For this to be meaningful, it is vital to get everyone,
including the non US plants who dont have the stricter environmental rules,
to be making these same improvements. It must be a global thing.
Comments welcome.
Paul Monus
BP Oil Lima Refinery
monuspa@olima.usaref.msnet.bp.com
* SARA TRI is nomenclature for the Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act
Toxic Release Inventory (328 chemicals are on this list counted thru 1995,
with 286 additional chemicals to be addd to the list in 1996)
-
Segel Jonathan D <4jds@qlink.que
- Junior Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Limits to Growth
One questions the work of the Gods of system dynamics (Forrester et al.)
at extreme peril, but there were some major flaws with the original Club of
Rome work as I recall.
As I remember it, the key problem was the absence of a supply/demand
mechanism as per economic theory.
On the supply end, the world reserves of oil are not a fixed quantity.
There is a quoted quantity, which is the amount of oil which could be
economically extracted at a given price. If however, the price of oil
increases, the amount of oil which could be economically extracted at
that higher price is much larger.
On the demand end, as resources grow scarcer, price increases. This
decreases the demand in two ways; firstly by increasing the efficiency of
resource utilization (eg. more energy efficient cars, better insulated
houses) and through substitution of alternative sources of supply (eg.
natural gas, electricity).
Ontario Hydro saw thirty years of
7% growth in electricity demand, to the point where it was assumed to be
a natural law. Then the OPEC oil crisis hit in 74 and demand growth
dropped to zero and stayed there for years. The resultant overcapacity
was hugely expensive.
Resources rarely if ever hit the wall as the Club of
Rome work implied. Instead one sees supply and demand behaviour moderated
through the mechanism of market pricing.
This only works of course, in markets where resources are bought and sold
such as oil. It does not apply for example, with regard to pollution
which is a resource usage which does not involve a cost directly to the
party using it (ie. generating the pollution).
In other words, outside of markets with pricing, and in the absence of other
controlling mechanisms such as legislation, there will be a tendancy
towards increasing use of common resources even to the point where the
total common cost of the over-use is significant. This is the Tragedy of
the commons archetype.
Jonathan Segel
4jds@qlink.queensu.ca
at extreme peril, but there were some major flaws with the original Club of
Rome work as I recall.
As I remember it, the key problem was the absence of a supply/demand
mechanism as per economic theory.
On the supply end, the world reserves of oil are not a fixed quantity.
There is a quoted quantity, which is the amount of oil which could be
economically extracted at a given price. If however, the price of oil
increases, the amount of oil which could be economically extracted at
that higher price is much larger.
On the demand end, as resources grow scarcer, price increases. This
decreases the demand in two ways; firstly by increasing the efficiency of
resource utilization (eg. more energy efficient cars, better insulated
houses) and through substitution of alternative sources of supply (eg.
natural gas, electricity).
Ontario Hydro saw thirty years of
7% growth in electricity demand, to the point where it was assumed to be
a natural law. Then the OPEC oil crisis hit in 74 and demand growth
dropped to zero and stayed there for years. The resultant overcapacity
was hugely expensive.
Resources rarely if ever hit the wall as the Club of
Rome work implied. Instead one sees supply and demand behaviour moderated
through the mechanism of market pricing.
This only works of course, in markets where resources are bought and sold
such as oil. It does not apply for example, with regard to pollution
which is a resource usage which does not involve a cost directly to the
party using it (ie. generating the pollution).
In other words, outside of markets with pricing, and in the absence of other
controlling mechanisms such as legislation, there will be a tendancy
towards increasing use of common resources even to the point where the
total common cost of the over-use is significant. This is the Tragedy of
the commons archetype.
Jonathan Segel
4jds@qlink.queensu.ca
-
kbs-fr@world-net.sct.fr (Michel
- Junior Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Limits to Growth
>As I remember it, the key problem was the absence of a supply/demand
>mechanism as per economic theory.
It was a common exercise at MIT, in the early seventies, to include in
Forresters World Model technological innovation and evolution of supply.
Most of the time, such changes did not alter the general behavior of the
model, it merely pushed back some of the dates at which problems start arising.
Michel Karsky
************************************************************
Michel KARSKY
KNOWLEDGE BASED SIMULATION
287, rue Saint-Jacques 75005 Paris - FRANCE
Tel: (33 1) 43 54 47 96 Fax: (33) 1 44 07 00 59
E-mail:kbs-fr@world-net.sct.fr
*************************************************************
>mechanism as per economic theory.
It was a common exercise at MIT, in the early seventies, to include in
Forresters World Model technological innovation and evolution of supply.
Most of the time, such changes did not alter the general behavior of the
model, it merely pushed back some of the dates at which problems start arising.
Michel Karsky
************************************************************
Michel KARSKY
KNOWLEDGE BASED SIMULATION
287, rue Saint-Jacques 75005 Paris - FRANCE
Tel: (33 1) 43 54 47 96 Fax: (33) 1 44 07 00 59
E-mail:kbs-fr@world-net.sct.fr
*************************************************************
-
WCOSTELLO@midd.middlebury.edu
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Limits to Growth
FOR: Paul Manus
As regards your questions about Limits to Growth:
a) there has been an update, "Beyond The Limits" published by three of
the authors of Limits, It was published by Chelsea Green Publishers in Vermont,
approx 4 years ago
b) as for other, related resources...there is a hypercard-based simulation
game for the computer titled "Beyond the Limits" by Ken Simons (Box 2310,
Banff, Alberta TOL-OCO, Canada) and available at ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu. This
program uses the modeling assumptions of World3 (updated) and allows the user to
run "what-if" simu,ations by modifying variables in the model.
c) Fishbanks can be a useful simulation game. I prefer to follow the
simulation with a session where participants actually attempt to manage the
fishery resource by using the Stella model and working guide developed by
Matt Halbower and available at the Creative Learning Exchange (see
http://sysdyn.mit.edu) for addresses and e-mail locations
regards,
will costello
costello@panther.middlebury.edu
As regards your questions about Limits to Growth:
a) there has been an update, "Beyond The Limits" published by three of
the authors of Limits, It was published by Chelsea Green Publishers in Vermont,
approx 4 years ago
b) as for other, related resources...there is a hypercard-based simulation
game for the computer titled "Beyond the Limits" by Ken Simons (Box 2310,
Banff, Alberta TOL-OCO, Canada) and available at ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu. This
program uses the modeling assumptions of World3 (updated) and allows the user to
run "what-if" simu,ations by modifying variables in the model.
c) Fishbanks can be a useful simulation game. I prefer to follow the
simulation with a session where participants actually attempt to manage the
fishery resource by using the Stella model and working guide developed by
Matt Halbower and available at the Creative Learning Exchange (see
http://sysdyn.mit.edu) for addresses and e-mail locations
regards,
will costello
costello@panther.middlebury.edu
-
saeed@ait.ac.th (Prof Khalid Sae
- Junior Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Limits to Growth
I have no problems with the way the limits model boundary is defined with
respect to its reference mode and its implicit and explicit assumptions.
However, the reference mode it considered was rather local and it did not
subsume the multiple patterns implicit in the variety of scenarios
expounded in its criticisms. Consequently, it does not have an operational
policy space for changing from one mode to the other. But, then, there was
little awareness of this variety when the model was formulated. Since it
helped to generate the variety of views which now seem to be converging
into the considerations of environmental economics, I think it was a huge
success.
Khalid
saeed@ait.ac.th
Professor Khalid Saeed
Infrastructure Planning & Management
School of Civil Engineering
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
G.P.O. Box 2754, Bangkok, THAILAND
phones: (66-2)524-5681, (66-2)524-5785; fax: (66-2)524-5776
respect to its reference mode and its implicit and explicit assumptions.
However, the reference mode it considered was rather local and it did not
subsume the multiple patterns implicit in the variety of scenarios
expounded in its criticisms. Consequently, it does not have an operational
policy space for changing from one mode to the other. But, then, there was
little awareness of this variety when the model was formulated. Since it
helped to generate the variety of views which now seem to be converging
into the considerations of environmental economics, I think it was a huge
success.
Khalid
saeed@ait.ac.th
Professor Khalid Saeed
Infrastructure Planning & Management
School of Civil Engineering
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
G.P.O. Box 2754, Bangkok, THAILAND
phones: (66-2)524-5681, (66-2)524-5785; fax: (66-2)524-5776