Ted Trainer criticizes Hatfield-Dodds CSIRO study in Nature that denies “Limits to Growth”

[This study denies “Limits To Growth”, and I’ve posted Ted Trainer’s objections below.  It is alarming Nature would publish such claptrap.  Has Rupert Murdoch secretly purchased them? Alice Friedemann www.energyskeptic.com]

Ted Trainer.  November 2015. A brief critical response to the CSIRO study:

Hatfield-Dodds, et al., (2015) Australia is ‘free to choose’ economic growth and falling environmental pressures, Nature, 5th Nov, 527, pp. 49 – 53. 1doi:10.1038/nature16065


This study (by eighteen authors) concludes that Australia can achieve sustainable levels of resource use and environmental impact by 2050 without interfering with economic growth and without any radical change in values or behavior. About twenty scenarios are modeled, and reported in many detailed plots in the c. 25 page Nature article plus the Supplementary Information document. These credentials make it likely that the findings will be widely reported and accepted. There are however a number of problematic aspects of the study. Following are brief notes on some of these, supporting the view that the paper’s conclusions are mistaken. They contradict the now large “limits to growth” literature so it is very important that they should be considered carefully.

The problem with “scenarios”.

The study reports on scenarios, mostly in the form of plots of trends on a baseline extending to 2050. Scenarios are commonly used but are of no value unless they are accompanied by full information on the assumptions on which they are based and full presentation of derivations. In this case we are given neither, meaning that the paper is little more than a set of unsupported claims. These might be correct, but the exercise would only be of value if we were able to assess this.

It is possible to prove just about anything by feeding specific assumptions into models, especially when a number of optimistic assumptions are combined. This is not to say dishonesty is involved. Estimates of future efficiencies and costs typically vary greatly in fields like renewable energy, emissions analysis, carbon sequestration, the hydrogen economy, and biomass technologies. If a set of relatively optimistic plausible numbers is taken it can produce conclusions many times more favorable than a set of plausible pessimistic numbers. In the case of this study it seems to me from the conclusions given that some quite implausibly optimistic assumptions have been made.

In other words, the paper does not explain how its claimed 2050 figures can be achieved; it simply states that they can be. The claims might be valid, but we can’t evaluate them. What we want is to know is how/why it is thought that they can be achieved, to be able to rework the arithmetic to assess the validity of these conclusions, and to be able to consider whether the assumptions underlying them are plausible. If an analysis does not provide us with the information enabling us to do these things it is not far from worthless. There are a number of analyses of this kind in the renewable energy field. I take a dim view of Nature’s poor standards in accepting such a paper, especially when it provides strong support for a much contested and I believe erroneous position on what is probably the most important issue we face; viz. whether or not there are limits to growth.


The study strongly accepts the “decoupling” thesis, i.e., that economic growth can be separated from increasing resource use and ecological impacts.

Reviews have found that at present there is virtually no satisfactory support for the claim that this is happening. (Burton, 2015.) Over the longer term energy use for instance has tracked almost exactly in parallel with GDP growth. It is not very helpful for this paper to say, “We find that substantial economic and physical decoupling is possible.” Even if substantial decoupling could be shown to be possible the important question is, could the magnitude of the effect be sufficient?

There are impressive reasons for thinking that the effect could not be sufficiently powerful to achieve the outcomes this paper envisages. According to these authors by 2050 Australian GDP can multiply by 2.7 while resource use falls 35%. That would leave a ratio of resource use to GDP that is around one-fifth of the present level. No evidence or reason is given to indicate why this is thought to be possible — in an era when just about all material, biological and ecological resource grades, costs, scarcities problems etc. are deteriorating rapidly. Add the cumulative global resource depletion that will occur in the next 35 years during which they estimate that GWP will multiply by 2.5.

There are numerous well known indices which show how enormous decoupling would have to be if economic growth could continue while resource and ecological impacts become sustainable. For instance ghe World Wildlife Fund’s “Footprint” analysis shows that the amount of productive land needed to provide an Australian with energy, food, water and shelter is about 7-8 ha. If 9.7 billion people were to live as we do then we’d need up to 78 billion ha of productive land … but that’s about ten times the amount there is on the planet. And if present loss rates continue we will have only half the present amount of cropland by 2050.

Similarly, if by 2050 all 9.7 billion people were to have risen to the GDP per capita Australians would have then given 3% p.a. economic growth, world economic output would be about 25 times as great every year as it is now. Is it plausible that “decoupling” could allow GWP, the amount of producing, purchasing and using up going on, to multiply by 20+ while rich world per capita resource use can be cut to one-tenth or one-twentieth of the present total? What is the case for thinking that anything like this could be done?

Given these kinds of multiples, a 35% reduction in materials demand (i.e., only 25% per capita given that the analysis envisages a 37 million population in 2050) would not get us far towards a global consumption rate that is sustainable and possible for all.

Presumably it is being assumed that the economy would be much more heavily centered on provision of services than at present rather than on producing resource-intensive commodities and goods, but services are remarkably energy and resource intensive, even when associated factors such as getting workers to offices, and training them in the first place, are not included. Again we would need to see assumptions and numbers.

I sent a draft of this critique to the main author. His only response regarding the decoupling issue was to say that a paper by Schandl et al. (2015) provides “more explanation.” But that paper does not provide any evidence or argument supporting the claim that decoupling is possible.  It isn’t even concerned with that question. What the paper does is make a basic assumption on carbon price and another on materials use efficiency, and then look at the effects on GDP etc. to 2050.

The Schandl et al. paper assumes that the efficiency of use of materials could improve at up to 4.5% p.a, compared with the historical rate said to be 1.5% p.a.  No reason is given for thinking that this extremely high rate is realistically achievable. If it was achieved then by 2050 materials used per unit of production would be around 4% of what it is now.  To put it mildly, we would need a very convincing case before we could take this expectation seriously.

But the biggest problem with the Schandl et al. paper is that it is pretty clearly saying that if we implement a high carbon price, and achieve an up to 4.5% p.a. improvement in materials efficiency, then by 2050 there will be significant decoupling, without affecting GDP.  But this only saying if we assume that significant decoupling takes place each year from now on, then by 2050 we will have significantly decoupled. (!) The paper is little more than an exploration of the effects of improving materials efficiency at the rates stated.

But the ultimate point about the Schandl et al. paper is that clearly and emphatically says that none of the scenarios they explore result in absolute decoupling.

On p. 5 they say,

“Our results show that while relative decoupling can be achieved in some scenarios, none would lead to an absolute reduction in energy or materials footprint.”  (They do say carbon would go down.)

“…even strong carbon abatement and large investment into resource efficiency would see global energy use growing from …(416 EJ/y to 1128 EJ/y in 2050.)

Note again the paper was the sole reference given to me when I asked the CSIRO authors what is the support for the decoupling thesis(!)

By the way, that energy growth figure is far higher than I have seen anyone predict, even the IEA. Energy demand more than doubles in all three of their scenarios, so to say the least, there is no absolute energy decoupling. To quote the paper again, “…energy use continues to be strongly coupled with economic activity in all three scenarios.” (p.5.) We are left with question, how sustainably could we find 2.7 times present world energy supply. The paper does not consider the difficulty of doing this via renewables. (I have published a number of papers arguing that this cannot be done affordably.)

Similarly they say that global materials use would increase markedly, from 79 billion tons/y to 183 billion tonnes/y. This would only be a small “relative” decoupling, but it would be 2.3 times the present burden on the planet due to resource extraction.

Thus it would seem that a) it is highly implausible that anything like the expected/assumed decoupling could be achieved, b) no reason is given to expect that it could, c) in fact even when Schandl et al. make very implausible assumptions they admit decoupling does not result, and d) even if the most optimistic CSIRO rate was achieved was it would leave Australian levels of resource and ecological impact far higher than those enabling a sustainable world (explained further below.)


The second of the two big assumptions the paper’s optimism depends on is the assumed potential for bio-sequestration of carbon. It says that in 2050 large quantities of carbon based energy would still be being used and up to 59 million ha would be planted to take carbon from the atmosphere. (All our cropland is only c. 24 million ha and all our agricultural land is about 85 million ha.) The yield assumption does not seem to be stated; is it 15 t/ha, or the more like 5 t/ha likely from a very large area of more or less average land? The main problem with the use of land to soak up carbon via plant growth is that after about 60 years the trees are more or less fully grown and will not take up any more carbon; what then?

The implications of this do not seem to be considered. It means that in the second half of the century an amount of new planting would be needed each year that was big enough to take out the amount of carbon emitted that year. Given that the economy in 2050 is expected to be 2.7 times bigger than it is now, and still growing at a normal rate, the area to be planted each year would be substantial, and increasing.

Fig. 2 shows that in 2050 a net 200 million tonnes of CO2 would be being taken out of the atmosphere each year. That is, in addition to taking out the emissions generated by the large amount of fossil fuels still being used in 2050 (which seems to be around 1.825 EJ), another 220 million tonnes would be taken out (the amount from power plus transport), making a total in the region of 450 million tonnes/y. Assuming 10 tonnes/ha/y forest growth (it would be more like 5 t/y for a large area), taking out approximately 36 tonnes of CO2/ha/y, the additional area to be planted each year would be 12.5 million ha, and more when it is to cope with an economy that is growing.

How has the carbon embodied in the production and transport of imports been accounted? It would seem that the 2050 economy would have to be even more dependent on services than the present economy, meaning there would be heavy importation of goods no longer produced in Australia. The energy, carbon, resource and Third World justice effects of imports is only beginning to be attended to, and the picture is disturbing. For instance for a rich country the amount of carbon emissions due to imported goods is typically as great as or much greater than the amount released from energy production. (And it shows up on the books of the exporting country, not the rich country consuming the goods.) Has the amount of bio-sequestration needed to deal with this been included?

In a reply to my draft of this discussion the main author said that “… the carbon sequestered by plantings on currently cleared satiates after a period and does not provide a permanent flow.” This is difficult to understand because it would seem to contradict their entire case. Their defence of the possibility of growth and affluence depends heavily on the capacity of bio-sequestration to take out as much CO2 each year as we are putting in but this reply seems to be admitting that their strategy could only do that until around 2050.

Randers, one of the original Limits to Growth authors, doesn’t think we will run into limits problems by 2050, but he thinks by about 2070 they will be catastrophic. The time line isn’t crucial; the original book wasn’t concerned with when we will hit the wall; it was concerned that we are going to hit it. At the best the CSIRO paper provides some reason to think it will be later rather than sooner, but it doesn’t give us any good reason to think we won’t hit it. Yet the paper is being taken to mean there are no limits to growth to worry about.

What carbon price will do it?

The study seems to have assumed that power generators will find it economic to shift from carbon fuels to renewables when the price of carbon rises to about $50/tonne (i.e., rises at 4.5% p.a. from $15/t.) Lenzen’s soon to be published detailed study of Australian renewable potential is likely to indicate that the price needed to drive carbon out of the generating system is $500/tonne. His colleague working on the German situation says that there the price would be close to $1000/tonne. (The CSIRO paper does not assume close to compete elimination of carbon fuels.)

The study seems to have made the very common mistake of taking the cost of carbon that would make it more economic for a generator to shift the generation of 1 kWh from carbon fueled power station to a wind turbine. But this is not the right question. A power supply system with a large fraction of renewable input would have to have a very large amount of redundant generating capacity, most of it sitting idle most of the time, to be able to guarantee supply during periods of low wind or solar energy, or it would have to retain much carbon-fuelled capacity, sitting idle most of the time. Either way high capital costs are created for the system. The multiple for a 100% renewable system seems to be in the range of 4 to 10 times the amount of plant that would do the job if renewables worked to peak capacity all the time. So the price of carbon would have to be high before it became cheaper for power generators to shift to renewable technologies.

No analysis of renewables.

Renewable energy is claimed to provide a significant proportion of the power and transport energy but there is no reference to the many, difficult and unsettled associated problems of intermittency, redundant capacity, and storage, and the resulting total system capital costs. It is utterly impossible to derive conclusions about the viability and cost of sustainable alternative systems without carrying out detailed and convincing analyses of this field.

Conservation potential?

The plots show that it is being assumed that demand and impacts can be greatly reduced by conservation and efficiency effort. This is commonly assumed but few if any optimistic pronouncements take into account the significant energy, resource and environmental cost of saving energy, resources and environment. In other words claims are often only about gross reductions achievable and not net reductions.

Powerful examples of this are given by figures on housing and vehicles. Much attention is given to the German Passivhaus which it is said can reduce energy consumption by 75% or more. However this kind of claim usually refers only to energy consumed within the house, and does not take into account the energy used to install the typically elaborate insulation and heat transfer equipment. The issue seems to be unsettled but a recent study by Crawford and Stephen (2013) found that the total life-cycle energy cost for the Passivhaus is actually greater than for a normal German house.

Even more common is the claim that electric vehicles (assumed to make up 25% of transport energy use in this study) can reduce energy use by 75 – 80%, but this does not take into account the considerable energy costs in producing EVs. The State Government of Victoria’s trial of EVs found that they reduce emissions only if powered by renewable energy. (Carey, 2012.) Otherwise life-cycle emissions taking into account all factors in addition to fuel are actually 29% greater than those of petrol driven cars. Mateja (2003) finds that electric cars involve much higher embodied energy costs than normal cars. Bryce (2010) says 60% of the life cycle energy and environmental cost of these cars is to do with their production and disposal, not their on-road performance.

Again it would be important to see what assumptions are being made by these authors in arriving at the optimistic conservation and efficiency claims being made.


It is said that water extraction might increase 101%, but desalinization would be important. What are the energy implications of this? Also what would be the water implications of 59 million ha growing trees. There is reference to fact that this is an issue but the implications and the magnitudes are not made clear.

What would the cost be?

It is one thing to show that something could be done but it is another to show that it could be afforded. The paper claims that no significant cost to GDP would be involved. Even if the decoupling and sequestration assumptions were valid we would want to know the cost of doing those things, e.g., of maintaining and harvesting 59 million ha, and of producing half the power by renewables. My understanding of Lenzen’s current study is that it seems to be indicating that a fully renewable power supply system would result in a production cost around four or five times the present cost of fossil fuelled power. (The CSIRO paper does say the cost of power production could double.) This would be affordable, but would have major disruptive effects, especially on GDP as energy costs feed into everything and have multiplier effects.

The post GFC stagnation, and wild fluctuation in oil prices seem to have shown how surprisingly fragile and sensitive the global economy is to resource input factors. Tverberg (2015) argues persuasively that resource limits to do with the increasing difficulty of providing oil and its deteriorating EROI led to the recent spectacular rise in its price, which in turn depressed the economy, which led to the present low oil demand and prices. This suggests how disruptive a significant rise in electricity price might be. This paper adds questions to do with the probable costs for all that bio-sequestration, and especially regarding the EROI assumed for biofuels which are assumed to provide 25% of transport energy. (Various studies find that it is around 1.4 or less for corn based ethanol, which suggests that option is not worth bothering with.)

Would it scale to 9.7 billion people?

The amount of land planted for bio-sequestration would not. The area assumed for the optimistic scenario, up to 59 million ha forest plantation for sequestration plus 35 million ha for “biodiversity planting” would total 2.2 ha per person (assuming population will reach 37 million by 2050.) But Australia has much more potential forest area than most countries and the amount of forest on the planet now averages about only 0.45 ha per person, and is heading for .25 ha by 2050.

The expected 2050 consumption of petroleum and gas is considerable. Leaving aside whether there will be much of either left by then, the per capita use would be 35 GJ per person. Thus for 9.7 billion people demand would be 340 EJ which is about 1.7 times present world oil consumption … and therefore far from a plausible amount all could be consuming in 2050.

These numbers mean that even if the optimistic scenario could be achieved it would fall far short of one that could save the planet. It would still leave Australians living at per capita levels of resource use that were many times higher than all could share.


As noted above, it would be difficult to suggest an issue that is more important than whether or not the limits to growth thesis is valid. The case for it has been accumulating weight for at least fifty years and in my opinion has long been beyond serious challenge. All resource stocks are being depleted at significantly unsustainable rates, summarized by the WWF conclusion that 1.5 planet Earth’s would be needed to provide them sustainably. And only about 2 billion are using them; what happens when 11 billion (the UN’s 2100 expectation) rise to our levels of consumption … let alone the levels we will have then given 3% growth … that is, levels that might be ten times as high as they are now.

This is the kind of arithmetic that is now leading considerable and increasing numbers of people to see the dominant obsession with affluence and growth and tech-fixes as absurd and suicidal, and to join the De-growth and associated movements such as Voluntary Simplicity, eco-villages and transition towns. We who are working in this area believe we know how to save the planet and we know the only way it can be saved. It is to shift to ways that do not create the problems now destroying the planet, depleting resources, condemning billions to deprivation, causing resource wars and damaging the quality of life in even the richest countries. Our “Simpler Way” vision (http://thesimplerway.info) would be easily and quickly achieved, if that was what people wanted to do. It isn’t and it will not be considered until the conditions presently devastating the lives of billions begin to impact supermarket shelves in the countries now living well on their grossly unfair proportion of world wealth. By which time it will probably be too late. The CSIRO paper is saying what just about everyone wants to hear, i.e., that there is no need to worry about any need to take The Simpler Way seriously.


Bryce, R., (2010), Power Hungry, Public Affairs, New York.

Burton, M., (2015), “The Decoupling Debate: Can Economic Growth Really Continue Without Emission Increases?”, The Leap, October 23.

Carey, A., 2012. Electric cars make more emissions unless green powered. The Age, 4th Dec.

Crawford, R., A. Stephan, (2013), “The significance of embodied energy in certified passive houses.”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 78, 589 –595.

Mateja, D., (2000), ‘Hybrids aren’t so green after all’, www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060331/31hybrids.htm

Schandl, H., et al., (2015), “Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: Scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions.” J. of Cleaner Production, (In press.)

Tverberg, G., (2015) “Oops! Low oil prices are related to a debt bubble”, Our Finite World, November 3.

This entry was posted in Limits To Growth, Other Experts and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.