Green demo cyclists block bridge

[iacula]

Your first statement quantifies the 'it's too late' standpoint. I favour a concerted effort to reduce population growth if a serious attempt to change things, but this would require a fairly serious change of attitude.

I'm afraid I have too little time to do other that choose my prejudice, in this case a George Monbiot article which proposes that economic growth is a much greater problem than population growth:

.... a paper published in Nature last week suggests that that there is an 88% chance that global population growth will end during this century(6).
In other words, if we accept the UN’s projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50% harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But compare this rate of increase to the rate of economic growth. Many economists predict that, occasional recessions notwithstanding, the global economy will grow by about 3% a year this century. Governments will do all they can to prove them right. A steady growth rate of 3% means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. By 2100, in other words, global consumption will increase by roughly 1600%. As the equations produced by Professor Roderick Smith of Imperial College have shown, this means that in the 21st Century we will have used 16 times as many economic resources as human beings have consumed since we came down from the trees(7).
So economic growth this century could be 32 times as big an environmental issue as population growth. And, if governments, banks and businesses have their way, it never stops. By 2115, the cumulative total rises to 3200%, by 2138 to 6400%. As resources are finite, this is of course impossible, but it is not hard to see that rising economic activity - not human numbers - is the immediate and overwhelming threat.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/01/29/population-bombs/

 

[very-near]

I'm afraid I have too little time to do other that choose my prejudice, in this case a George Monbiot article which proposes that economic growth is a much greater problem than population growth:

.... a paper published in Nature last week suggests that that there is an 88% chance that global population growth will end during this century(6).
In other words, if we accept the UN’s projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50% harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But compare this rate of increase to the rate of economic growth. Many economists predict that, occasional recessions notwithstanding, the global economy will grow by about 3% a year this century. Governments will do all they can to prove them right. A steady growth rate of 3% means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. By 2100, in other words, global consumption will increase by roughly 1600%. As the equations produced by Professor Roderick Smith of Imperial College have shown, this means that in the 21st Century we will have used 16 times as many economic resources as human beings have consumed since we came down from the trees(7).
So economic growth this century could be 32 times as big an environmental issue as population growth. And, if governments, banks and businesses have their way, it never stops. By 2115, the cumulative total rises to 3200%, by 2138 to 6400%. As resources are finite, this is of course impossible, but it is not hard to see that rising economic activity - not human numbers - is the immediate and overwhelming threat.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/01/29/population-bombs/

The problem is that we have to have growth in an economy or it just stops dead with everyone waiting for their next buy to fall in price before committing to purchase. I always thought it would be a good thing, but deflation just wrecks livelihoods and will send nations to the wall.

What we do need to see is very tight regulation on lending in the 1st world to keep a lid on property values and enormous speculation on the property markets.

1/2% to 1% inflation should be a more realistic goal PA

The balance has to be found between improving the lives of the human race and consuming the resources for material gain.

What makes them think that the population will stop increasing in 90 years time ?

As I understand it there is already more than enough CO2 in the system to carry on warming it up.