How To Think About The Future

I hope you've got your thinking cap on today. Although this post appears to be about climate change, it is not. I am going to use a recent news report about carbon emissions from thawing permafrost as a jumping off point in a discussion of a much broader subject—how to think about the future. This too-brief presentation is a bit complicated, so I hope you will be able to follow the discussion.

A recent study called High risk of permafrost thaw appeared in the December 1 issue of the science journal Nature. As you're probably aware, the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet, and one of the effects of that warming is to cause the permafrost to melt and break-up, thus releasing the large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄) stored there. If you are awake, you also know that both are greenhouse gases. We are interested in this text from the study.

Our survey asks what percentage of the surface permafrost is likely to thaw, how much carbon will be released, and how much of that carbon will be CH4, for three time periods and under four warming scenarios that will be part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report.

The lowest warming scenario projects 1.5 °C Arctic warming over the 1985–2004 average by the year 2040, ramping up to 2 °C by 2100; the highest warming scenario considers 2.5 °C by 2040, and 7.5 °C by 2100. In all cases, we posited that the temperature would remain steady from 2100 to 2300 so that we could assess opinions about the time lag in the response of permafrost carbon to temperature change.

The survey was filled out this year by 41 international scientists, listed as authors here, who publish on various aspects of permafrost. The results are striking. Collectively, we hypothesize that the high warming scenario will degrade 9–15% of the top 3 metres of permafrost by 2040, increasing to 47–61% by 2100 and 67–79% by 2300 (these ranges are the 95% confidence intervals around the group’s mean estimate). The estimated carbon release from this degradation is 30 billion to 63 billion tonnes of carbon by 2040, reaching 232 billion to 380 billion tonnes by 2100 and 549 billion to 865 billion tonnes by 2300. These values, expressed in CO2 equivalents, combine the effect of carbon released as both CO2 and as CH4.

This sounds pretty terrifying, and it is scary when viewed over long periods (centuries) on the human timescale. (On the geological timescale, a few centuries amounts to no time at all.) These scientists are talking about the years 2040, 2100, and 2300! Let's disregard the far-flung future and focus on the predicted carbon release by 2040.

Any such survey of expert views is only as good as the assumptions underlying those views. Notice that estimates of greenhouse gas release from thawing permafrost are based on the four warming scenarios which will be part of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). These scenarios are unnamed in the Nature article, but a little digging helped me identify them. (Google is your friend.) Here they are.

Click on the image to enlarge it. It is highly likely that the four scenarios used in the Nature study were MESSAGE 8.5, AIM 6.0, MiniCAM 4.5 and IMAGE 2.6. Here's my source, which is corroborated here.

If you look closely at the right panel, you will see the four emissons pathways corresponding to the scenarios. Let's throw out the high case (MESSAGE 8.5) and the low case (IMAGE 2.6). In the former, anthropogenic emissions just rise and rise, eventually reaching 100 billion tons (gigatons, gt) per year. In the latter, which may appeal to some Doomers in the audience, emissions rise only a little from their current level of 33 gigatons per year and fall off sharply after 2020. No doubt the people who created this scenario were not considering a possible collapse of industrial civilization. They were thinking instead that humankind made a concerted effort to reduce emissions, which appears to be more and more unlikely.

As we consider the middle scenarios AIM 6.0 and MiniCAM 4.5, we must bear in mind this very important point:

All other things being equal, anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are a proxy for economic growth*

* "a proxy for" in this context means "provide an alternative measurement of", or "stand in for"

As things stand, and in the foreseeable future, anthropogenic emissions from burning fossil fuels will rise if and only if the global economy is growing. See my recent post For Humans, The Economy Is Everything. Also see my much longer essay Economic Growth And Climate Change — No Way Out? (This long essay is not for the faint-hearted.)

OK, let's return to the two middle scenarios. In MiniCAM 4.5, annual emissions grow slowly from the current level to about 38-39 gigatons in 2050, which is a mere 39 years from now. In the AIM 6.0 scenario, annual emissions grow to about 53-54 gigatons in 2050.  We are thus entitled to conclude that both scenarios assume the global economy will continue to grow for the next 39 years. Let's split the difference between the two. Let's create a scenario called DAVE 1.0 in which emissions grow to about 45-46 gigatons per year by 2050. Let's take that as the default scenario assumed by the IPCC and the authors of the Nature study.

Getting back to thawing permafrost, the survey results published in Nature assume that emissions from the frozen tundra will be anywhere from 30 gigatons of CO₂-equivalent (the low-end IMAGE 2.6 scenario) to 63 gigatons (the high end MESSAGE 8.5 scenario). Let's split the difference again, and assume that emissions will be about 45-46 gigatons from thawing permafrost by 2040 according to the DAVE 1.0 scenario. (I am simplifying here by assuming a linear relationship, but that really doesn't matter much.)

And now we are finally ready to ask the crucial questions all of this discussion has led up to.

1. How likely is it that we will follow an economic growth path where the cumulative total emissions from thawing permafrost are about 45-46 gigatons by 2040? And annual anthropogenic emissions are 45-46 gigatons by 2050?
2. Relatively speaking, how important is it that all emissions from thawing permafrost will total 45-46 gigatons by 2040, which is about 140% of total anthropogenic emissions in 2010? (Of course, such emissions will grow for a long time after 2040.)

In short, do you find it plausible that the global economy will grow and grow for the next 39 years? If you think this is possible, or even likely, you should worry about CO₂ emissions from thawing permafrost. If you don't find DAVE 1.0 plausible, and regular DOTE readers know I don't, you're likely to shrug off this Nature survey about future emissions from thawing permafrost, reasoning that there are plenty of things to worry about; this is only one of them.

For example, what will global oil production be in 2040? What will it be in 2050? In my view, it's not only likely, it's almost a certainty that global oil production will be considerably lower in 3 or 4 decades than it is right now. Perhaps you think that makes no difference to future economic growth. I beg to differ.

Now you can see, perhaps with new eyes, that scary scenarios about emissions from thawing permafrost (and the like) are predicated on what I call Dumb Extrapolation of 20th century economic growth trends well into the 21st century. We also see this in Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports on future deficits. Future deficits are estimated to be far smaller than they likely to be based on highly unrealistic future economic growth rates, which again, all things being equal, boost government revenues. When officials representing large human institutions like the IPCC or the CBO talk about the future, you will invariably find Dumb Extrapolation.

I hope you've followed this complex argument and have learned something about how to think about the future. By definition, Dumb Extrapolation excludes the possibility of radical discontinuities in all areas of study—the climate, the oil supply, the coal supply, the world economy, the American economy, CO₂ emissions from thawing permafrost, future government revenues and so on. In fact, I have been forced to use it today with respect to permafrost emissions as reported in the Nature article. I did so to make a larger point.

One such discontinuity occurred in 2008. It is three years later, and we in the United States are all still paying the price. Europe is teetering on the edge of economic castastrophe. China appears to be in big trouble, given their failing export model and bursting real estate (housing) bubble. Thinking about what the world will look like in 2040 is sufficiently mind-boggling, let alone thinking about what might happen by 2100 or 2300.

This choice quotation from the great Yankee catcher Yogi Berra seems apropos here.

The future ain't what it used to be

Bonus Video — Peter Gabriel's Down To Earth, the ending theme from the excellent animated Disney/Pixar film WALL-E (2008).

 

Comments

[Ao]

Dave, I think you make a similar mistake in your reasoning (extrapolation): that emissions will track growth. It is entirely possible that GDP flatlines and then starts decreasing while total emissions stay the same or even increase.

How? In our desperation to run the global economy on any source of energy we can find, we'll gladly tap dirty sources: tar sands, shale gas, shale oil, etc. Each of which will fail to provide us the level of energy we need to continue GDP growth, but which also produce much more CO2/CH4/... than their counterparts per unit net energy delivered. (Compare tar sands to onshore oil or conventional gas to shale gas or low-grade coal to anthracite.)

[John D]

Having followed your blog for over a year, I understand mankind is screwed and realize our system is so corrupt that nothing will change to fix it. By now I should be numb to it all. However, I confess to some intellectual interest in trying to figure out which will come first- environmental collapse or economic collapse, and how they both work in unison. I guess we all have our morbid fascinations.

[Dave Cohen]

Re: a similar mistake that emissions track economic growth

We're already exploiting shale gas, tar sands oil and oil from shale reservoirs. We will continue to do so.

I said "all things being equal" and I meant it. It is one thing to mindlessly extrapolate past economic growth rates into the future. It is quite another to PREDICT that the energy intensity of the energy supply will rise or fall. I made the only reasonable simplifying assumption -- it will stay the same.

Your conjecture that the economy will not be growing but anthropogenic emissions will be increasing is wholly unsubstantiated by the historical record. See the longer essay I cited in the text. When the economy is not growing, or shrinking as in a recession, emissions decrease because aggregate global demand for energy stays flat or decreases. That's what less economic activity implies.

Although your argument that tar sands oil is dirty (measured by emissions) is correct, these emissions are a drop in the bucket compared to coal emissions. Furthermore, you must consider the RATE at which tar sands oil production can be increased. The increment is relatively low. And "unconventionals" like shale gas and oil from shale reservoirs are not particularly dirty in regard to emissions.

Of course, in 40 years people might be cutting down a lot of trees for firewood and making charcoal. But that's a whole other story ;-)

-- Dave

[Ao]

The world's energy mix is moving towards coal (and has been for at least a decade) as China and India turn to it. And recent studies have shown that contrary to popular belief, shale gas produces far more emissions than conventional gas in large part due to Methane seeps (not to mention lower EROEI). (How much worse is still up for debate as the studies aren't conclusive yet.)

[Dave Cohen]

Re: studies show

ALL natural gas production involves methane leakage. In fact, I wrote a post about the fact that massive switching from coal to natural gas doesn't help much with emissions for that very reason.

I seriously doubt shale gas is much "dirtier" than conventional natural gas production. And remember, shale gas is only a drop in the bucket compared with world natural gas production. People think about shale gas only because its a BIG DEAL in the United States because of all of the hype, most of which is unsubstantiated. I have written several posts on the subject.

And as I noted above, demand for coal would decrease if the global economy is shrinking. Actually, the "energy mix" is not changing much at all. Regarding coal, emerging economies are just burning more and more of the stuff for power generation. They aren't making liquids out of coal (CTL) and they are very likely using natural gas for power generation when there is a reliable supply because it is cleaner.

Unfortunately, the Saudis are burning OIL to generate electricity. This is a very disturbing trend. One of their internal ministries said that unless they start doing some fuel switching -- change the "energy mix" -- they will have no oil for export by 2025. That's what I call really bad news.

-- Dave

[Remi]

I quit my high paying government job in sustainability research, sold my house and moved into my in-laws house on the farm all so that my kids can learn the only skills I know will be required in the future, food production. I lost interest in trying to make an inherently unstustainable model sustain itself a bit longer. Who knows what the future holds for us. The earth cannot sustain 7 billion people. The economy cannot grow exponentionally forever. Carbon resources are finite. These are facts that most scenarios ignore. How it plays out is anyone's guess. It's all pretty depressing and hard for the psyche to take, which is why most people want unrealistic future scenarios. Who wants to be an undervalued farmer that needs to work like a dog to get less than minimum wage...

[Mike Roberts]

Good post, Dave. It gets down to the core concept that we're screwed, either way. If miracles really do happen, then we're screwed on the climate (or, more screwed than we actually will be). If miracles don't happen, we're screwed on the economy and our societies. Since miracles don't happen ...

However, when politicians and Joe Public think about the future, they assume that growth actually will return and definitely over the next 40 years. With that mindset, it's perhaps useful for them to realise that, in that impossible scenario, we're screwed.

[JC]

Overall I agree w u Dave. I think you serve your blog well by your focus - please keep er up. There are deeper darker scenerios that are more probable. For instance, review Krugman's views of the issue of our future. He has clearly written about peak oil and climate change, and I think is in agreement with your views Dave. His vision of the future is much different however, probably for many reasons that we'll never know. The main source of GDP growth going forward for Krug is technology and automation:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/falling-demand-for-brains/

Your blog has killed tech solutions since I've read it. I agree with you. BUT, the elite (represented by Krug) do not subscribe to this view. as our opinion will NOT matter, technology will be the game changer like it or not. The challenge for us trying to survive is what does tht mean. It will be lower energy use for poor and middle classes and MORE for smaller group of rich. It will mean less environmental effects as the rich are a small group. The worlds population of 8b is mostly poor- we will need to get used to he idea that most will die off.

I don't see anyway beyond this scenerio. Please give me alternatives. But before doing so please read through Krug and consider his ideas as He is clearly connected to what will happen like it or not.

[AlT]

dave,

your focus and reasoning are excellent!
too bad you do not extend them to try thinking about what is beyond die-off of poor and PMC (professional-middle-class)
many people call homo sapiens sapeins "stupid" and "lacking sapience" and so on and so forth
i simply say that resources have not been yet depleted and corrupted to the degree that human condition for organism-whole had evolutionary significance

we simply need couple of generations of killing each other and elites guarding their lifestyles before those who can think straeight are spurred to action

of course the collapse and die-off is inevitable over next 50 - 100 years but once we have a generation or two of "elites" educated on the background of die-off things will be vastly different

too bad none of us will live long enough to see it