*More like it's been a marathon game of pass-the-parcel between bankers, speculators and governments.*

More like politicians behaving like the mafia, Poirot.

All those mums and dads in Europe lending to banks, who lent
to Govts. The silly assumption was that Govts would actually
pay their debts. How wrong they were.

In typical dismissive arrogant fashion Curmudgeon advises Graham to get out of his ivory tower into the real world.

Never mind that he knows zilch about Graham's life, how he does his research, his private life outside of the academy including any community action groups etc etc that he participates in.

Never mind too that world-wide there are countless thousands of environmental action groups with millions of members, all of whom understand to one degree or another that business as usual is not an option.

Daffy, or would you prefer DD - I was judging Graham by what he wrote, which shows that he knows little about about how the real world operates. His claim was that we are moving away from profits and growth and so on - but even a glance at the real world indicates that we are doing no such thing. The trends and problems are as I pointed out in the original post.

The millions of environmentalists you point to will also be unwilling to trade off income for green advantage - they want the trade off to apply to others, not to them..

Curmudgeon - you are at it again.

You presume to know and state what motivates the actions, and what, if any, changes or life-style sacrifices that millions of environmentalists are prepared to make.

And that they are therefore all calling or proposing that everyone else, other than them, should be forced to change and/or down-size the way in which they live.

Geoff of Perth and Daffy Duck have at least taken a responsible and reasoned approach to the thrust of Graham Harris' article, and I have to concur with most of what they have posted; though I'm not sure I approve of Daffy's "techno-barbarian" barb. I also absolutely agree with Prof. Harris' article, and its message - which demands the most serious attention in its implications for the future of humankind and the world as a whole.

The bias and narrow-mindedness demonstrated by the many contra-thinking 'individualists' on this thread is both illuminating and disturbing. Prior to this I would have been reluctant to accept Graham's postulation of the dimension of the divide between the individualistic and communitarian viewpoints at the base of so much competition within our supposedly advanced and progressive society.

Some have sought to reduce the discussion to an argument against AGW theory, and others simply vie against any intrusion on or threat to their comfortable lifestyle and mindset - and rejecting any possible efficacy of a more environmentally responsible and sustainable future.

Whilst we sit arguing the minutiae, China and much of the developed world is buying up Africa and South America, and investing heavily in the Pacific basin. Therein, there is a move afoot which threatens to make the decimation of the North American indigenous tribes seem like a sunday picnic, but with a difference. The disposession of the native inhabitants of these regions will not be fast, by the bullet, but will be a slow disintegration into poverty, starvation, or a new kind of slavery. And, what will inevitably be the consequences for those environments? I shudder to think; but you may forget about diversity and wildlife.

Though some here may react against the dire possibilities of 'business as usual', we would all be wise to consider the implications of Prof. Harris message, and shake ourselves out of our bliss.

Cheryl,

Don't know where you're at, but get a grip.