File: c:/ddc/Angel/BestIntentions/Randers.html
Date:  Tue Jul 24 13:38:50 2012
(C) OntoOO/ Dennis de Champeaux

Jorgen Randers

Jorgen Randers contributed to the World3 system of which Dennis Meadows was the lead, [Meadows]. Their World3 simulator was developed around 1970 and ran from 1900 to 2100. He is also coauthor of all the Limits to Growth (LTG) series of books that reported on the many scenarios developed for collapse avoidance in the 21st century. Randers became chronically worried because they did not get traction with their work on plausible futures.

Finally, he couldn't take the uncertainty any longer and he decided to make a new simulator using the actual developments during the 40 years since 1970, [Randers]. His simulator is more modest and runs through 1970-2050. He claims repeatedly that his effort is made easy by the inertia of the sociopolitical system: the preceding 40 years have shown that humanity has persistently not been able to change its ways to obtain better alternatives. Hence it stands to reason that breakthroughs, while desired and certainly hoped for, will again not occur. This could be a preventive move to counter those who claim already for decades that human ingenuity will save the day.

... I basically believe that we will see the same rate of technological and societal change over the next forty years as we have seen over the last forty years.
His devil's advocate position is distinctly different from the LTG books, in which collapse avoidance scenarios were patiently described with the apparent expectation that the (world) leaders would use their recommendations. Rander's tactic is formulated, very politely: I know, I know that you are not able to do what you are supposed to do, but let me tell you anyway one more time what unfortunate future reality you therefore can expect.

His goal is limited in the sense that one can play less with structural parameters (than is possible with the World3 model) to come up with policy advice how to steer the world away from collapses. Instead, the aim is to provide a most plausible scenario towards 2050 and a description of the situation in 2050.

The development of the 2052 system was driven by the desire to answer, somewhat indirectly, the questions:

-- What will happen to consumption over the next forty years?
-- Under what conditions - in what social and natural environment - will that future consumption take place?
While the World3 model is totally aggregated, the 2052 model has five separate models for respectively: the US, the OECD minus the US, China, BRISE (big emerging economies), and ROW (the rest of the world). In addition, the five models are aggregated into a sixth World model. Yet another major difference with World3 is that its generic pollution module has been replaced (or complemented) with a climate module. Noteworthy also is that the World3 non-renewable resources module has been disaggregated with the components: oil, gas, coal, and nuclear.

Trends calculated (for the different regions and for the world) to help answer these questions are, among others: the population size, GDP per person, food per person, consumption per person, temperature rise, sea-level rise, unused bio-capacity (raw nature), energy percentages for oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewables, CO2 emissions, CO2 in the atmosphere, cultivated land, (financial) inequity, social tension, labor productivity, urbanization, fertility, etc.

Details of the 2052 model

The 2052 model is in a spreadsheet that can be obtained via: www.2052.info. This resource contains many graphs for the different regions and for the World. We copy from the latter and add discussions.


The population peaks around 2040 due to the combination of still dropping fertility and finally increasing mortality. Fertility drops because people move away from the land to urban settings. Mortality increases because longevity can't keep increasing any longer as was the case in the 20th century.


This graph projects that oil's role in total energy use will continue its decline during 2010-2050. Gas, coal and nuclear will max out and will decline too. Randers predicts that renewables will grow from 8% to 38% due to investments in solar, wind and biofuels. His main argument appears to be that our leaders will come to their senses and force replacement of fossil fuel's CO2 emissions to counter further climate change impacts.


This graph shows that the projected greater role of renewables does not prevent further build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. The temperature and thereby the sea level keep increasing as a result.


Rander's Standard of Living graph suggests that until 2050 things are pretty much OK at the global level. GDP/person, food/person, consumption/person will increase, while production has become more efficient, less energy intensive. The catch is that the sea level rises as as a result of the increasing temperature (and the expected change in weather patterns).

Towards 2050

The 2052 model yields different scenarios for the five different regions. Randers, suggests stagnation, if not decline, for those who are now in the most prosperous regions, and substantial progress for those who are now at the bottom due to catch-up development. Still, Randers projects that starvation will remain in the bottom 2 billion segment of the world population.

The 2052 model differs from the World3 model regarding the projected agricultural yield. The World3 model predicted the food/person ratio to max around 1995. Instead, this ratio kept increasing after 1995 till 2010 and Randers projects this trend to continue until 2040. This alleviates, if correct, a source of trouble in the World3 model.

What is produced in an economy is, roughly, either consumed or invested. Randers includes under investment the repairs required for 'natural' disasters as well as for preventive actions (both of which are more significant due to human induced climate change). Randers projects during 2010-2050 globally an increase of investments for mitigation from 24% to 35% and hence a decrease for the consumption percentage.

Unused bio-capacity (raw nature) is projected to decline during 1970-2050: from 4607 Mgha to 2316Mgha. The per person decline is more pronounced: from 1.25ha to 0.26ha.

Randers assumes that nations will ultimately do the right thing. The impacts of climate change will force them (too late) a shift to non-fossil energy sources and to protect the infrastructure against the onslaughts of climate change.

Randers states repeatedly that he is not in favor of the trend towards 2050. Elitist's enjoyment of raw nature, solitude, access to the world's cultural highlights without having to deal with tourist mobs, etc. will have disappeared. Species extinctions, bio diversity decline, climate change induced disasters will make life less attractive if not miserable for those now used to the good life.

Beyond 2052, the "cliff hanger"

The Randers's model runs till 2050. Still, he permits himself to make a comment about the next half century because the real action may occur subsequently:
... the world of 2052 will be well established on a path that I really fear -- the path toward self-reinforcing climate change and climate disaster in the second part of the century.
He refers here to the real possibility that the world temperature will have increased in 2050 to the point that the Siberian tundra starts melting thereby releasing even more green house gasses that will amplify the warming effect until all is melted.

Bottom line

The Randers model differs from the World3 scenarios that declines/ collapses are pushed forward one or two decades or so. The notion that we are running out of time or that we cannot prevent declines/ collapses due to the global system inertia has not changed.

Randers must be applauded for warning yet again the world leaders and all of us that we in dangerous territory and that prudence demands, among others, trading in economic growth for qualitative growth.

References

[Meadows] Meadows, D., J. Randers, & D. Meadows, "Limits to Growth, The 30-Year Update", Chelsea Green Publishing Co., 2004.

[Randers] Randers, J., "2052, A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years", Chelsea Green, 2012.

Appendix Inequity

Randers does mention economic inequity several times. He suggests that disturbances will occur (leading to decreasing labor productivity) if inequities are not relieved. His remedy: more taxation and more transfers. He appears to be unaware about the magnitude of current transfers as a consequence of the already extensive economic 'irrelevance' of bottom majorities. While social services certainly alleviate acute suffering, they do not provide life satisfaction and thus resentments remain. Hence chances for disturbances are likely higher, which causes his model, from that perspective, to be too optimistic.

Back to index