Dave J. writes

I was going to stay out of it, but 'keeping the worlds economy going' is the
polar opposite of 'reducing emissions'

Almost certainly unless there is a sudden burst for nuclear, tidal or
massive solar powerstations. None of these seems very likely.

In fact it's broader than that.

'Keeping the economy going' is, by definition, a maintenance of the current
exponential rate of growth. That growth (almost) by definition involves a
parallel increase in consumption.

Yes. That's true and by golly its kicking in with the chinese, and soon
perhaps even the indians. There are 2B of them, which is a tad more than
500M westerners.

Therefore a 'healthy economy', under the current system of values, desires,
and definitions of success, probably has an *automatic* cost WRT the odds on
our survival.

That depend on whether global warming and survival go together.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.