Rich countries, with about one-fifth of the world's people, are consuming about three quarters of the world's resource production. Our per capitaconsumption is about 15-20 times that of the poorest half of the world'speople. World population will probably stabilise around 9 billion,somewhere after 2060. If all those people were to have Australian per capitaresource consumption, then annual world production of all resources wouldhave to be 8 or more times as great as it is now. If we tried to raise presentworld production to that level by 2060 we would by then have completely exhausted all probably recoverable resources of one third of the basic mineral items we use. All probably recoverable resources of coal, oil, gas,tar sand and shale oil, and uranium (via burner reactors) would have beenexhausted by 2045.

Petroleum is especially limited. World oil supply could peak by 2010 and be down to half that level by 2025, with big price increases soon afterthe peak. (Campbell, 1997.) The optimistic (US Geological Survey) estimates only delay the peak 10 years.  If all the people we will probably have on earth by 2025 were to have Australia's present per capita oil consumption worldoil production would have to be 15 times what it will probably be then. (The Petroleum Situation.)

There is a very strong case that it will not be possible for any otherenergy sources to replace oil (see http://dieoff.org) and that the commonassumption that renewable energy sources such as the sun and the wind cansustain industrial affluent society is quite mistaken. (Trainer, 1995a, Renewable energy.)

The petroleum situation is therefore quite alarming, especially given Australia's very high dependence on liquid fuel for food production,transport and exporting. Yet virtually no attention is being given to theproblem by the media, academia, government or the general public.

If all the expected 9 billion people were to use timber at the rich world per capita rate we would need 3.5 times the world's present forest area. If all 9 billion were to have a rich world diet, which takes about .5 ha ofcropland to produce, we would need 5 billion ha of food producing land. Butthere is only 1.4 billion ha of cropland in use today and this is not likelyto increase.

Recent "Footprint" analysis estimates that it takes at least 4.5-5 ha ofproductive land to provide water, energy settlement area and food for oneperson living in a rich world city. (Wachernagel and Rees, 1995.) If 10billion people were to live as we do in Sydney where the footprint is probably closer to 9 ha, we would need about 90 billion ha of productiveland.  But that is 12 times all the productive land on the planet.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that in order to stop the carbon content of the atmosphere from rising any further we mustreduce the use of fossil fuels by 60-80%. If we did cut it by 60% and sharedthe remaining energy among 9 billion people, each of us would get only 1/18of the amount we now use in Australia per capita. Most people have no ideaof how far beyond sustainable levels we are, and how big the reductions willhave to be.

The foregoing argument has been that the present levels of production andconsumption are quite unsustainable. They are too high to be kept going for long or to be extended to all people. But we are determined to increasepresent living standards and levels of output and consumption, as much as possible and without any end in sight. Few people seem to recognise the absurdly impossible consequences of pursing economic growth.

If we have a 3% p.a. increase in output, by 2060 we will be producing 8 times as much every year. (For 4% growth the multiple is 16.) If by then all10 billion people expected had risen to the living standards we would have then, the total world economic output would be more than 100 times as great as itis today! Yet the present level is unsustainable. (For a 4% p.a. growth ratethe multiple is 220.)

These sorts of numbers are far beyond magnitudes that plausible assumptions about technical advance could make sustainable. The "technical fix" optimistmostly talk about the possibility of reducing resourse use or environmentalimpact per dollar of GDP by a factor of 4-10. However the above figuresindicate that factor 100 reductions would not be sufficient, and even thesewould have to be doubled each 23 years if we insist on 3% p.a. economicgrowth.

These are some of the main limits to growth arguments which lead to the conclusion that there is no possibility of all people rising to the living standards we take for granted today in rich countries like Australia. We can only live like this because we are taking and using up most of the scarceresources, and preventing most of the world's people from having anythinglike a fair share. Therefore we can't morally endorse our way of life. Wemust face up to dramatic change from the commitments to affluence, marketforces, the profit motive and growth. We must accept the need to move to farsimpler and less resource-expensive ways. (See The Sustainable AlternativeSociety We Must Build , or Trainer, 1995b.)

Campbell, J., (1997), The Coming Oil Crisis, Brentwood, England, Multiscience and  Petroconsultants.

 Trainer, T. (F. E.), (1995b), The Conserver Society; Alternatives forSustainability, London, Zed Books.

Trainer, F. E. (T.), (1999),  "The limits to growth case now", The Environmentalist, 19, 19, 4, Dec. 325 -336.

Wachernagel, N. and W. Rees, (1996),  Our Ecological Footprint,   Philadelphia, New Society.
_________________________________________________________________
  For a longer account see The Limits to Growth Analysis. See also Collected Documents, The Limits to Growth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Simpler Way: Analyses of global problems (environment, limits to growth, Third World...) and the sustainable alternative society (...simpler lifestyles, self-sufficient and cooperative communities, and a new economy.)  Organised by Ted Trainer.  http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/