Thanks.

I also found this, on self denial.

I see three big problems with what you are saying:

1) It is extremely patronizing to just order people to want a certain kind of life (one that happens to conform to your preferences). It is theoretically fine to require people to keep their usage of common resources at such a level that equity goals can be achieved, but it seems wrong to tell them how.

2) Selling the kind of ideas above is enormously harder than selling the rather more practical efforts that would be required to deal with climate change. The biggest problem is that people have no incentive to reduce emissions. Taxes and emissions trading can change that.

3) Poverty and low environmental impact do not necessarily go hand in hand. It is only once people have reached a certain level of prosperity that they are willing to start making sacrifices for the sake of greenery. The most important examples of this today are India and China who are (quite reasonably) unwilling to give up the prospect of development because of environmental concerns.

I’d say it will look more like a nasty bullet that we were able to dodge, against the odds, through a technological fix. The fact that you sidestep the charging rhino doesn’t mean that rhinos aren’t dangerous, or that you shouldn’t be glad for your good fortune.

The basic fact is economic growth, as it is concieved of in a laisser faire economy of perverse wealth, is and never will be ‘sustainable’. The only answer is less of everything. Less people, less crash safety in autos, less trans atlantic vacations, less profits.

There can be more of some things though. More internet, more art, more community celebrations. More drinking (less working). More hiking. More writing. More reading.