My inclination is to turn off the laptop and walk to the beach muttering about what people aren't seeing.

Why?

I thought it was fairly non-controversial that the world could decarbonize (more or less) within the space of a few decades (say, 2060) with a global per capita GDP at that time that is massively higher than the global GDP of, say, 2010. We're probably not going to, of course. But that's a matter of policy choices (and a whole lot of collective action problems) - not an inevitable consequence of population levels or resource limits.

Because we've made such amazing advances in technology compared to, say, a few decades ago we certainly can have a global economy that can support 8 or 9 billion people at a higher standard of living than today (on average) within the resources available on earth and without suffering the consequences you describe in your post. We're going to not choose to do that.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.