Environment & Energy

Sure... looking at the past and assuming that nothing changes into the future (until everything falls apart of course) is standard M.O. for a malthusian... but that doesn't make it legitimate.

The impact of already-implemented (and incredibly significant) policy decisions regarding hydro/nuclear/renewables wouldn't show up at all with such a curve fitting. So we already know that those lines are wrong... and that impacts the coal line.


Also - an underlying assumption that does not match reality continues the cause/effect error we discussed last time in assuming that energy drives economic activity (rather than the other way around). Much of China's massive population has been shifting out of 3rd-world status over the last couple decades... and thus their GDP growth has been astronomical (even in "recession" years). That growth rate wouldn't continue for that long even if they had all the energy they wanted. Thus it doesn't make sense to draw lines based on the assumption that energy demand will continue to grow at the rate of the last decade over the next two.