We don’t have a resource problem. We have an engineering/technical problem. And an even bigger problem of imagination and will.

Dr Kate Rawles combines academic training (she was a lecturer in environmental philosophy at Lancaster University for nine years and has a PhD in environmental ethics) with extensive outdoor experience and a passion for environmental and social change. While at Lancaster, she had a particular interest in figuring out what is said in academia that is useful and then communicating that to professionals in other fields. She has worked with vets, conservationists, engineers and the corporate sector and has lectured nationally and internationally, including in India, Zimbabwe, USA, Italy, Finland and Hong Kong.[emph added]

(Yes, I’m incandescent as well, Tim).

I agree with most of your comments, but here is something I find ridiculous…the claim that “global growth” has averaged 3% annually. That may be a statistical fact, but in reality, growth has been almost infinite in comparison.

Consider Abraham Lincoln. He had four children. Only one of those children lived to adulthood. What would the Lincoln’s, upper middle income people and incidentally the President of the United States, have paid to have all of their children live a full life, something that even the poorest families in the United States enjoy unless they meet a rare tragedy.

http://vitalaccuratethinking.blogspot.com/2008/03/malthus-said-same.html

I’m afraid this sort of idiocy makes me incandescent with rage. Why?

Well, look here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/093.htm#1

“In the A1 scenario family, demographic and economic trends are closely linked, as affluence is correlated with long life and small families (low mortality and low fertility). Global population grows to some nine billion by 2050 and declines to about seven billion by 2100. Average age increases, with the needs of retired people met mainly through their accumulated savings in private pension systems.

The global economy expands at an average annual rate of about 3% to 2100, reaching around US$550 trillion (all dollar amounts herein are expressed in 1990 dollars, unless stated otherwise). This is approximately the same as average global growth since 1850, although the conditions that lead to this global growth in productivity and per capita incomes in the scenario are unparalleled in history. Global average income per capita reaches about US$21,000 by 2050. While the high average level of income per capita contributes to a great improvement in the overall health and social conditions of the majority of people, this world is not necessarily devoid of problems. In particular, many communities could face some of the problems of social exclusion encountered in the wealthiest countries during the 20 th century, and in many places income growth could produce increased pressure on the global commons.

Energy and mineral resources are abundant in this scenario family because of rapid technical progress, which both reduces the resources needed to produce a given level of output and increases the economically recoverable reserves. Final energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP) decreases at an average annual rate of 1.3%. Environmental amenities are valued and rapid technological progress “frees” natural resources currently devoted to provision of human needs for other purposes. The concept of environmental quality changes in this storyline from the current emphasis on “conservation” of nature to active “management” of natural and environmental services, which increases ecologic resilience.

With the rapid increase in income, dietary patterns shift initially toward increased consumption of meat and dairy products, but may decrease subsequently with increasing emphasis on the health of an aging society. High incomes also translate into high car ownership, sprawling suburbia, and dense transport networks, nationally and internationally.”

This is one of the four families of economic models that the IPCC, and thus the entire climate change hypothesis, is built upon. Yes, it does indeed lead to global warming (using the IPCC’s techniques) but the point is that CO2-e is the *only* problem they forsee. If we can decarbonise energy production (again, I’m taking the IPCC’s own logic here) then everything will be just dandy and yes, all on the planet can enjoy, in perpetuity, the current western level living standards.

That is what makes me incandescent with rage: that this silly cow is using the IPCC reports to insist that western lifetyles are simply not achievable for all: when the IPCC projections actually assume, a priori, that everyone will enjoy such lifestyles.

Somewhere out there there’s a village that’s lost its idiot: go back home Dr. Rawles, your people miss you.