Limiting personal consumption levels is necessary but not enough. You also need to limit the number of consumers or total consumption will continue to rise. Sustainability requires limits on both consumption AND population.

Herein lies the problem. Capitalism (and domination/hierarchy of all forms) will have to fall before any such reductions in consumption, growth and waste are addressed. With its dogma of growth, exploitation and atomisation it is driving humanity to the brink. I foresee many many deaths in the future. Can humanity grow up enough to avoid it or are we doomed to expire in our own filth ridden nest?

Good article, Benjamin.

I’m in just about full agreement. Just a couple of comments…

<< Therefore to reduce emissions to the degree mandated by scientific evidence, it is inescapable we must curtail economic activity. To do that requires us to move away from the perpetual economic growth paradigm. >>

We certainly have to abandon our commitment to the unsustainable growth paradigm, but that doesn’t mean that we have to curtail economic activity.

Yes, we’ve got stop it from continuously increasing and thus strive to achieve a dynamic steady-state economic paradigm. But within that, the level of activity can and indeed should remain just as vigorous as always.

The key is to change the nature of that activity; to base it on renewable energy and improved efficiencies of all sorts.

And another key point is to strive for real per-capita improvements, instead of basing economic growth on such highly flawed indicators as GDP.

If we think of economic growth in terms of real improvements in quality of life instead of fiscal parameters, which afterall is what the economy is supposed to be about, then we’ll be on the right track.

If we think of economic growth in this way, then we can see that continuous growth in terms of QOL improvements is a good thing, but that continuous growth in terms of an ever-greater economic turnover made necessary by continuous population growth, with no average per-capita gains, which is exactly what is happening at present, is just a stupid future-destroying load of rubbish.

Of course, the other major thing that needs to be done is to stabilise the population.

Mikk,

You are right. Socialism has a proven record of reducing private consumption and industrial emmissions.

Someone out of work is sure to consume less.

Socialism under Stalin did wonders for population too!

Actually Benjamin your worrying is all in vain.
Zero growth WILL happen without you having to lift a finger.

It seems that Peak Oil occurred in July 2008 and we are on the decline.
Peak Coal will occur in 20 years or less and the decline will probably
be steep.
So with declining energy availability, declining growth
(contraction)must follow.

So that is it. You can see the effect of this.
Examine the differences in the reaction of politicians to global
warming and their reaction to Peak Oil, gas and coal.
They do not want to discuss peak oil because they have been told
there is nothing they can do about it except tell the public the
bad news. No politician will tell you the bad news, they need a
comfort blanket such as the Emissions Trading Fund.
There is no such blanket with energy depletion.

You would be wise to examine how Rudd works to find out just how unwise he is in human terms he is Oz's number one Bigot .
Rudd believes in one thing eg; himself , he is deeply in love with himself.
While he would endorse most of your diatribe , nothing will ever happen . Rudd does not have an opposition to contend with he instead has a wall of hatred and of course those of the Public he has insulted and belittled must also be included .

The Greatest Happening since Woodstock , another Rudd fizzer ; Copenhagen ! What a joke ! In calculating his contribution to Climate Change in Copenhagen don't forget to include the 900 or more tonnes of fuel burnt to CO2 his Jet injected directly into the stratosphere as he fluttered back and forth and all for what ? Nothing.