Jorgen Randers, one of the original authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, “The Limits to Growth,” of 1972. Now, he is one of the main authors of the new report to the Club, “Earth for All” This post is not meant to be an in-depth assessment of the Earth4All model but a general discussion on how to use forecasting models. I argue that no matter how sophisticated a model can be, it will always have shortcomings and that a flexible approach is normally the best. The Earth4All model is an integrated assessment model (IAM) linked to earlier efforts such as the “Limits to Growth” series of models, but it is a different approach, being more “goal-oriented” in the sense that it defines the policies needed to approach social, economic, and environmental goals. Facing an uncertain future, Earth4All provides a roadmap that we may or may not be able to follow, but it is part of our efforts to manage a better future for humankind.
"_The problem [with Peak Oil Theory] was that the real world is subjected to many uncertainties that cannot be easily described by fixed parameters. New extraction technologies changed the situation_"
It appears to be more diabolical than that.
The problem isn't that "peak oil theory" was wrong; the problem is that they keep changing the rules, in order to placate investors and the masses.
Art Berman points out that "oil production" based on volume is a false measure. That we keep hitting "new peaks" of volume is a strong hint. In his recent interview with Nate Hagens, he states that a full 40% of what is included in "oil production" is, in fact, _not_ oil!
The current official stats include things like "refinery gain," "natural gas liquids," and even things that have never been in the Earth, like biodiesel and corn-ethanol!
The "refinery gain" magic alone should raise eyebrows. When fuel is refined, a technique called "cracking" is employed, by which you end up with more gasoline-grade fuel and less diesel-grade fuel. That's a simplification, but the end result is you wind up with _more_ volume of liquids that actually contains _less_ energy!
If the volumetric fibbing were not enough, the energy content situation is even worse. The "fracking revolution" has created a glut of lighter-grade hydrocarbons, which contain less energy than heavier grades. Some Permian Basin workers are putting what they pump directly into the gas tanks of their pickup trucks! It seems that a "barrel of oil" these days contains as much as 5% to 10% *less energy* than a barrel of oil contained before widespread fracking.
So, I don't think current production statistics show "peak oil" was wrong at all. On an energy basis (instead of a volume basis) we arguably hit "peak energy" at about 2015 or so, when fracking began in earnest. They simply changed the "what is oil" rules in order to make peak oil wrong.
This could explain why civilization is experiencing the expected catabolic effects (stagflation, reduced productivity, unemployment, etc.) of peak oil, even while the fancy charts and graphs "show" we have not reached peak oil.
This model is an interesting development; I''ll have to read about it in more detail. Models such as this one, as you say, may be aimed at things other than straightforward prediction, but I think the public's tendency is to take them as predictions. Your characterization of models as answers to "what if?" is a good one.
Look at the havoc that Neil Ferguson's Covid model created, I think in part because it was taken as a prediction even though it was highly dependent on its inputs.
Perhaps we should look at forecasts about the existence of Peak Oil the same way we look at the human lifespan (since after all, "Gaia" is alive). We can make informed predictions about how long someone will live, given their genetic profile, their lifestyle, etc. that may end up being way off because there are just too many variables. But the end result is certain, nonetheless. No advance in science will deliver eternal life (in the physical sense, anyway), the WEF and its transhumanists notwithstanding. Similarly, Earth is finite, we just can't know with sufficient accuracy just HOW finite.
"_The problem [with Peak Oil Theory] was that the real world is subjected to many uncertainties that cannot be easily described by fixed parameters. New extraction technologies changed the situation_"
It appears to be more diabolical than that.
The problem isn't that "peak oil theory" was wrong; the problem is that they keep changing the rules, in order to placate investors and the masses.
Art Berman points out that "oil production" based on volume is a false measure. That we keep hitting "new peaks" of volume is a strong hint. In his recent interview with Nate Hagens, he states that a full 40% of what is included in "oil production" is, in fact, _not_ oil!
The current official stats include things like "refinery gain," "natural gas liquids," and even things that have never been in the Earth, like biodiesel and corn-ethanol!
The "refinery gain" magic alone should raise eyebrows. When fuel is refined, a technique called "cracking" is employed, by which you end up with more gasoline-grade fuel and less diesel-grade fuel. That's a simplification, but the end result is you wind up with _more_ volume of liquids that actually contains _less_ energy!
If the volumetric fibbing were not enough, the energy content situation is even worse. The "fracking revolution" has created a glut of lighter-grade hydrocarbons, which contain less energy than heavier grades. Some Permian Basin workers are putting what they pump directly into the gas tanks of their pickup trucks! It seems that a "barrel of oil" these days contains as much as 5% to 10% *less energy* than a barrel of oil contained before widespread fracking.
So, I don't think current production statistics show "peak oil" was wrong at all. On an energy basis (instead of a volume basis) we arguably hit "peak energy" at about 2015 or so, when fracking began in earnest. They simply changed the "what is oil" rules in order to make peak oil wrong.
This could explain why civilization is experiencing the expected catabolic effects (stagflation, reduced productivity, unemployment, etc.) of peak oil, even while the fancy charts and graphs "show" we have not reached peak oil.
But we have arguably passed peak fossil energy.
Nebulous gibberish on the part of fossil fuel entities is the very bottom of the morally bankrupt barrel.
This model is an interesting development; I''ll have to read about it in more detail. Models such as this one, as you say, may be aimed at things other than straightforward prediction, but I think the public's tendency is to take them as predictions. Your characterization of models as answers to "what if?" is a good one.
Look at the havoc that Neil Ferguson's Covid model created, I think in part because it was taken as a prediction even though it was highly dependent on its inputs.
Perhaps we should look at forecasts about the existence of Peak Oil the same way we look at the human lifespan (since after all, "Gaia" is alive). We can make informed predictions about how long someone will live, given their genetic profile, their lifestyle, etc. that may end up being way off because there are just too many variables. But the end result is certain, nonetheless. No advance in science will deliver eternal life (in the physical sense, anyway), the WEF and its transhumanists notwithstanding. Similarly, Earth is finite, we just can't know with sufficient accuracy just HOW finite.