By Mike Koetting August 4, 2026
I recently ran across an article contending that the 1972 Limits to Growth projections about environmental threats were on track. That reminded me that when these were first published, my friend Rick Casey, then at the National Catholic Reporter, commissioned me to write a review. Although long since moved on, he was able to track down the review for me.
Turns out, it held up fairly well. But, before that….
The Limits to Growth
The publication, Limits to Growth, was the outgrowth of computer-generated models by a group of MIT scientists. It attracted considerable attention because both the technology and the findings were then novel. (Hard as it is to imagine, there was a time in my life when computer modeling was a novelty.)
The model made projections of five systems—agricultural production, industrial output, population, non-renewable resource consumption and pollution—and their interaction effects. The conclusions were dismal. They predicted the net effects of these trends unmoderated from then current trends would result in some kind of system breakdown around 2050. They specifically warned, however, there would be a long run up that looked like everything was under control, but as we got closer to one crisis or another, it would be more difficult to moderate trends because the phases leading up to crisis would accelerate exponentially. It was the scientific equivalent of Hemmingway’s observation on how you go bankrupt. “Gradually. Then suddenly.”
The slow-motion approach to collapse complicates evaluating the models’ accuracy since the key-point is when the trends change direction. Over the years since then, the trends continued close to the original projections. (Renewable resources have depleted more slowly than modeled through the development of new technologies—such as fracking—allowing more extraction. The authors of the original study had acknowledged this was a possibility, but observed this would create different problems, which they in fact have.) However, none of this “proves” the trends will turn when the models say they will, although, in truth, the original authors never claimed these were exact dates but more illustrative of what would happen if trends continued.
The most recent re-running of the data points suggests that the worst scenario has been avoided but the more central timelines for a crisis are pretty much unchanged. Additional research has pointed to some other factors that might be included in the model—for instance, global temperature—but all agree on a central thesis: human welfare depends on several interacting factors and the current trends cannot be carried on indefinitely without a major problem.
My 1972 Review: Back to the Future
It is slightly amusing that I thought the argument over the environment was already old hat, complaining it had been going on “for three or four years now.” I said then the world was divided into ”environmentalists threatening doom at every turn and their critics promising technological salvation just around the corner.” From my perspective, this description hasn’t changed much. It’s like the last 50 years never happened. Apparently, no amount of accumulating data makes a difference.
This outcome is not at all inconsistent with my overall assessment in 1972:
I outlined the reasons then and the intervening years have not moderated those concerns.
Why We Can’t Address
The major problem remains there is no economic or political structure in which addressing global environmental issues is compelling. These problems are enormously complicated and are international in scope. Every one is responsible for the environment which, in real world terms, means no one is responsible. No unilateral action by a single country, or even a group of countries, will by itself make a difference at scale. We can argue if all joined hands and made the plunge, we could change the future. Possibly. The success of the Montreal Accord on chlorofluorocarbons shows it can be done. But how many of us can really imagine that happening on some as ubiquitous as fossil fuel? In the sphere of what needs to be done, the Paris Climate Accords were moderate and the world is well short of meeting its goals, whether measured by country or overall. (Or in the case of the United States simply refusing to participate, its idiot president insisting there is no climate danger.)
We all assume that among the world’s leaders, there will always be some who feel they can free ride on the efforts of others. And among the world’s citizens, the political lift will be much greater in developed countries because they will have to give more. One can argue that would be fair because developed countries have used more of the world’s resources and contributed more to the environmental problems as a function of their development. Undoubtedly true. But most of the people who would vote for that do not live in developed countries.
Some people understand the reality of the threat and figure they can make money now and leave the future to others. As early as 1977 Exxon executives knew with relative precision the impact of fossil fuels on global temperatures. Their response: obfuscate and sow endless doubt. They, and similar corporations, knew the score; they chose to not simply hide it, but deny it. More recently, the corporate titans haven’t even bothered to hide the facts. Turns out it is much easier to simply bribe the Republican party (and Democrats if necessary) to ignore the reality.
Another response, think Donald Trump, is to use the issue to divide and deflect. I don’t know what Trump really knows about the environment, but I know he has used environmental issues to attack Democrats and blame economic woes in certain working class areas on Democratic concerns about the environment. It is true that some of the needed environmental steps will erode jobs in some sectors. On the other hand, they will create new jobs. Trump has never understood, never wanted to understand because it doesn’t help him, that the role of a leader is to help a nation resolve the tradeoffs that are necessary for its long-term welfare.
Most people don’t think about environmental issues much. It’s simply too overwhelming. Faced with a problem that seemingly has no straightforward solution—and the effects of which seem some time off in the distance—people with lives to live simply tune out. They may, at some level, connect the extreme weather the country is experiencing with environmental problems, but they can’t draw a straight line (or even a crooked one) between anything they could do and the bad effects they are experiencing.
So What Now?
Assuming the Limits to Growth assessments are anywhere near correct—and all available evidence suggests they are–I don’t see any way to avoid stepping in some really nasty stuff.
Consequently, I think the most realistic imperative is to make sure we are investing enough in adaptation. I am not suggesting we give up on preventing environmental degradation. But I suspect by the time things get sufficiently bad that a critical mass of people stop fighting the issue, it will be very hard to stop the downward trends. What could have been done 50 years ago with modest pain will require Herculean efforts.
Since we are unable to commit to preventing the problem, we should at least be realistic about its nature. For functional purposes, the world has already blown past the 1.5 degree mark of the Paris Accords and we’re on our way to a global temperature increase of at least 2.0 degrees. We have seen the problems this causes. (While I was writing this, the air quality here in Chicago was well beyond hazardous due to smoke from record numbers of wildfires.) The is no reason to expect the future will not get worse.
Adapting to the changes already happening—actual, not forecast—will entail international, national, and regional efforts to respond to specific problems. I anticipate a subsequent post to further consider the issue of adaption.
In the meantime, just starting to address this will be politically complicated because it would require admitting that it is happening. It would also require rethinking revenue sources and reprioritizing expenses.
To the extent polls can be trusted, an overwhelming majority of the public would be fine with that. But there is a powerful group of people who don’t want to see that happening, in part because they think their wealth can buy them out of environmental issues.
The question is whether there are politicians with the skill and courage to capitalize on what the majority want, or are we going to continue to be ruled by leaders who have figured out how to profit from denying inconvenient truths.
Between Hell and High Water 