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.

Surely all possible causes of global warming should be considered. Maybe emissions are not the problem.

Photographs and a file attachment re dumped sewage nutrient pollution feeding algae linked to methane and CO2 can be found at:
http://agmates.ning.com/forum/topics/cop-15-copenhagen-attention

I suggest download the Bering Strait jpeg and print on photo paper to see the green algae streaming into the Arctic Ocean where ice is melting.

Am I wrong at all?

Dear Ludwig,

You made some very good points - I agree.

May I direct you to the works of E.F. Schumacher - particularly "Small Is Beautiful" ...."A Study Of Economics As If People Mattered". It was a classic of its time and, it seems, is still relevant today.

Hello there, I have been interested to follow the way our government has tightened its belt in the face of global warming. 114 delegates to the talkfest at Copenhagen $850 per night and $51 for a BOWL OF SOUP - well I paid a little less at a recent conference at a 5+ star resort in OZ.
It has inspired me to rethink my global footprint, as I have been trying to minimise it recently. In line with the government's thinking, I have decided to relax my personal restrictions a little.
Two definite about faces -
The Christmas Lights will go up - but not until Saturday - If they can pay $51 for soup, I think I should be able to hold my head up with the neighbours and turn the lights on.
In addition I have decided to watch the fireworks this New Years Eve. In the past, I have boycotted them as an absolute waste of time and money, and a blight on our atmosphere. However, on reflection, I think that if $51 is OK for soup then, the fireworks are OK with me. Beside, I really like fireworks - they are wonderful, especially without the smell.
Other strategies I am considering, but reluctant to implement include:
showering every day ( I used to but thought it was excessive, given the shortage of water), using a chain saw to cut the wood, Hubby has developed a bad back since I said he must use an axe.
Actually I think I can think of many ways to enlarge my carbon footprint, just give me time and the current government

bridgejenny - I agree we need to laugh at the eco fools who want everyone else to cut down on consumption, while they while away at conferences at great expense.

Personally I am trying to help out by eating as much meat as possible, and in as many different ways as possible.

I don't subscribe to the hair shirt or self flagellating behaviours, it all seems so, well "religious", you know, paying penances, buying indulgences, pilgrimages to holy events .. hmmmm.

Sure we could pollute a little less, and I have no problem with that, we can all do our bit - but I'm only going to dig in when eco fascists tell me what to do and how to do it - normally some 20 something year old spoiled brat know it all.

When I was 20, not many people could travel overseas, our parents couldn't afford to send us either - so we have how many precocious brats at the eco fest in Copenhagen? So is the world a better place now kiddies? This was all created by the very processes you now want stopped and reversed, really, it will all stop you know, then what will you do?

$51 for soup .. yep, that's sustainable living for you - I can do better than that easy, and not have to change anything at all about my lifestyle.

What a joke, like the Bali thing, it's become an industry without any requirement for more than words as a result.

Thanks Poirot.

Yes, Fritz Schumacher was on the ball. Such simple but profound messages – like telling us that the modern expansionist economy was unsustainable and that we should be considering the most appropriate scale of economic activity, instead of striving to make it ever bigger.

Oh, if only governments had listened to this fundamental advice back then in the early 70s and acted accordingly!

Some of the comments here hit the nail on the head- in Victoria over the last 10 years we have seen the population per capita consumption of water meet or exceed the mandated reduction targets- but the overall volume of water consumed continues to increase- due to population growth-

we are way out of balance with the natural cycles- the only way any life form can achieve this level of dicontinuty is finding a cheap abundant source of energy- fossil fuels in human's case-

If peak oil is correct and now peak coal- in 20 or 30 years due to exponential growth in consumption- when our net energy available to do work begins to decline our society will begin to decline-

But let's try a thought experiement- what is a post peak oil coal society going to look like? There will be moderate intra regional trade- for people will not change- they will still seek out pleasurable past times and define themselves through the accumulation or possession of goods or resoruces albiet on a very small scale compared to today- we will have whole regions lost to despair - modern cities will be close to vacate since most do not have the land mass to support the population densities of today- so hopefully there will be large numbers of mid sized towns trading with vastly different degrees of quality of life between them depending on the citizens mix and the skill base and understanding embedded within the goverenance structures- economies will be local and regional- will the internet be still up and functioning- more than likely- so this will be our link to the rest of the world- travel will be a serious adventure again where leaving one's home will be highly uncertain and dangerous- travel to other parts of the world might be only for the very few and rich- the middle class will be gone- it was a invention of the industrial age- but we'll have more time for family- community, we'll define ourselves less by material wealth and have healthier diets-

cheer

SM

From one extreme to the other, that is your response?
This isn't some ivy league school debate 'rah the team' and win at all costs meaningless debating competition.(a'la politics)

It is about level thinking and an acceptance that things need to change.
Simplistic 'socialist' chain rattling just declares the above.

Examinator,

Mikk never fails to beat the socialist drum especially when it has nothing to do with the topic. Though I agree that if a strong economy is the problem socialism is the solution, even though the greatest environmental catastrophes originated from "socialist" countries.

There is no secret that power consumption is directly related to the economy and where coal is the major source of power, to emissions.

While there may be some advances in renewable energy, the cost is prohibative, and there are limits without a baseload alternative. So the developing countries are unlikely to agree to emissions cuts without substantial funding from the developed countries. Similarily the developed countries are not likely to provide more than token aid as their economies will already be suffering from the emissions cuts.

As the developing world (if India and China are included) emit nearly 50% of all emissions and have the highest growth in emissions, the US and EU recognise that any agreement from Copenhagen without a binding limit on the developing world is worthless.

Unless a lower cost, plentiful base load electrical supply is forthcoming, no politician is going to get the support he needs.

The reason I keep pushing nuclear is that in spite of many people misgivings, little or nothing is going to happen without it. Whilst it is more expensive than coal, it is still a fraction of the cost of any renewable power source.

The limits of growth are presently constrained by restriction of debate and development of knowledge. For example major media is boycotting news about natural world food supply devastation and where viable and sustainable alternative supply will come from. Without halting present natural food devastation and loss of breedingh numbers the situation and impact is worsening unchecked. Economic impact involving increased demand and reduced supply is already forcing higher prices and inflation, yet response has been to remove fish from the CPI.

With water there is no effective debate or action to overcome waste of so many litres to flush a pee down the loo several times a day. Measure the quantity of one pee, about half a coffee cup, yet so much water is flushed to chase it away. No wonder the increased population is short of water.

And why is wet season northerly rain not being harvested and sent to the northern Darling River to feed the Murray and populations of the south?

Some of us are being hamstrung. Humans have ability to develop solutions but innovation is being given the tall poppy slasher treatment. Productive policy and able management is being gagged. The limiting factor to growth in Australia is major media politics.

Shadow Minister
Please tell me when we could at the earliest get a nuclear power plant operational in Australia and how many do we need?

20 years, 30 years and one a year for how long?
Can we wait that long?
NIMBY is a big problem.

How many renewable power plants can be built in that time?

China, alone, is proposing over 300 nuclear power plants using existing designs, how much uranium is their left!!

Do not mention Candu, not many working or proposed, or new designs they either have been dropped or in very early prototype, not commercial for far to long to be considered perhaps in 30 years they maybe.

What if PV's drop in price, as they are doing with new technology, we could have many nuclear power plants idle as they can only be used for base load.

Perhaps that is why NSW wants to sell of the coal plants as they know they could be a white elephant.

PeterA,

Obviously you didn't bother to look up CANDU as Today there are 29 CANDU reactors in use around the world, and a further 13 "CANDU-derivatives" in use in India and a further 10 to 20 planned from next year mostly in china and India.

Of the old type reactors none of the planned reactors are of that design, so even with 300 reactors in China, the fuel will last hundreds of years.

As for contruction, the average time from approval to commissioning is about 5 years. If these were built in the Latrobe valley to replace the brown coal plants, they would come with most of the infrastructure in place and as most of the valley is almost a moonscape from coal mining there would be little valid environmental protest, as the environment would be much cleaner.

You might find in 5-10 years when power costs rocket that resistance to nuclear will dissolve in all but the most radical.

The installation of renewable power on anywhere near would also need major infrastructure and would be no faster.