<< We cannot continually run deficits and run up debt to fund recurring expenditure. We need to live within our means. >>

Absolutely, Peter.

<< The richer the country (and the world) is the better we are able to manage environmental issues >>

But what about the environmental damage wrought in attained that high level of wealth?

<< Our focus needs to be on long term sustainable economic growth… >>

We need to very carefully define economic growth as only the stuff that improves our lives, and does so without leading to the depletion of essential resources as far as possible… and you do not include population growth and all the economic growth that is needed to support it which leads to the same quality of life for evermore people, and NOT to an improvement in QOL for the pre-existing population.

There is no such thing as sustainable economic growth, if we are to continue to define growth as an all-encompassing grab-bag of good and bad things, of growth in both supply and demand.

What we absolutely need to do is to slow down population growth and head for a stable population, and hence slow down and eventually stabilise the demand for all manner of resources, goods, services and infrastructure. Then with good economic growth we might actually be able to improve these things, instead of desperately trying to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for more of them.

<< Energy is effectively unlimited >>

Ah but energy at anything like the current cost is very limited. It is the rising cost of energy that will be our biggest bug-bear in the near future, as it will pervade the economy, quality of life and social fabric, on all levels from personal to national and global.

<< Lack of access to cheap energy is a critical problem. >>

YES!!

continued

<< The simple, overriding fact is the wealthier the world the better for human well being. >>

Not if we deplete our energy and other resource reserves and wreak great environmental damage in order to get that wealth.

Real wealth needs to be ongoing. It is achieved when we have a demand base that sits very comfortably within our ability to supply all the basics in an ongoing sustainable manner.

The gapminder progression through time is all very well. But what happens in the future as oil becomes much more expensive? Could it be that the richest countries, which are the most dependent on fossil fuels, will suffer greatly, while the poorest countries will be little-affected?

If population is increasing and energy consumption per-capita is also increasing, with the end of cheap fossil fuel energy looming, then we are not really gaining wealth…. or at most; gaining it only for a little while.

Ludwig,

Many assertions and statements of your beliefs. None are supported. Mostly the debunked ‘Limits of Growth’ type arguments; not correct.

Let’s start with your comment about energy, one of the two fundamental inputs to everything we have.

>“Ah but energy at anything like the current cost is very limited.”

Not correct. Humans have been increasing their per capita energy use for the past 200,000 years at the rate of:
E = 1100*T^-0. 4
Where:
E = daily per capita energy consumption (MJ/d)
T = years before present
It strains credulity to believe that humans will suddenly curtail the rate of per capita energy growth that has been going on for the past 200,000 years just when we are here. It’s dreaming.

Furthermore, the real cost of energy has been reducing throughput that time, and the trend continues, with minor short term interruptions. It has been accomplished because we’ve been moving to ever increasing energy density (wood fires, cows pulling ploughs, wood > coal > oil/gas > nuclear fission > nuclear fusion. The next big step up will come when we move from fossil fuels to nuclear energy to supply most of the worlds energy. The initial step will be as we widely adopt the current generation of thermal nuclear power plants; these are a factor of 20,000 increase in energy density compared with coal and oil. Then the next step is an increase by a factor of 2 million as we move to breeder reactors. This will happen when we stop blocking nuclear power development and deployment (the modern day equivalent of requiring a person to carry a red flag in front of a car to warn horse drawn carriages of its approach.).

Transport fuels are unlimited. Petrol, diesel, jet fuel from seawater: http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/

Regarding population control the best way to achieve this is to raise the per capita income at the fastest sustainable rate. That is well known and obvious if you look at the GapMinder charts I suggested.

Humans will manage all other resources as we have been doing since man first began to communicate.

<< Mostly the debunked ‘Limits of Growth’ type arguments; not correct. >>

Well Peter, if that is what you believe, it puts us as complete and utter odds.

Limits to growth is so incredibly basic and fundamental, as an ecological principle to which all organisms are beholden, and equally to humanity.

Yes energy is unlimited. But what matters is how readily attainable it is, and at what cost. We need to consider energy in – energy out, the scale of production and the changes to economics and to just about everything else as it becomes much more expensive.

I can’t see how we can avoid an enormous energy crunch in the near future. And this will surely be an enormous limits-to-growth event.

<< It strains credulity to believe that humans will suddenly curtail the rate of per capita energy growth that has been going on for the past 200,000 years just when we are here. >>

Does it??

It strains credulity in the extreme to think that average per-capita energy consumption can continue to increase for much longer.

Ludwig,

Yes. We disagree fundamentally. However, I’ve provided what I believe is very strong support for my arguments. You haven’t provided any. You are simply stating your beliefs. So, all I can say is I disagree with your (unsupported) assertions.

Did you carefully look at the various charts I pointed you too on GapMinder? I suggest it would be well worth spending some considerable time and considering the points and conclusions I made. The discuss them if you want to.

Did you consider the probability that 200,000 years of increasing per capita energy consumption would suddenly be reversed just when we happen to be here?

As I pointed out, the cost of energy has been decreasing for 200,000 years. Why would that trend change now? There is effectively unlimited nuclear fuel available and the only thing preventing it from being cheap is the anti-progress anti-nukes in the developed countries. That will change – it already is in the emerging economies.

>” It strains credulity in the extreme to think that average per-capita energy consumption can continue to increase for much longer.”

Not for me. No one in the past knew what was ahead. So the trends are the best guide. Here’s another way to think:

So far, humans have been through these stages of development and now in the last on the list:
• Primitive man
• Hunting man
• Primitive Agricultural man
• Advanced Agricultural man
• Industrial man
• Technological man

What’s the future:
• Mars man
• Solar system man
• Milky Way man
• Universe man
• Black hole man
• Parallel universe man

Clearly, energy consumption per capita and economic growth will grow on for ever.

This might interest you: “What does it mean to be anti growth” http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/pielke/

Ludwig,

If you are still thinking about 'Limits of Growth' and the points I made above, you might find this presentation on "Limits to Growth" by Bjorn Lomborg interesting:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2014/03/14/3962766.htm

It was shown on ABC News 24 last night (after midnight).

The fact it was shown on ABC is interesting in itself. It demonstrates that even ABC, who have been one of the promoters of extremist beliefs in catastrophic climate change, strong advocates of renewable energy and extreme anti-nuclear zealots are being forced to show some balance, even if they did so by showing this presentation after midnight. And even if they couldn't resist stating their prejudice in the title and intro:

"Bjorn Lomborg: Limits to Growth - Still Wrong, Still Influential"
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2014/03/14/3962766.htm