The only solution to overconsumption that will be accepted by the businesses and citizens of the developed world is to change our production and disposal processes such that they can be integrated into the resource flows of the natural world.

If we produce our goods and products using current solar income, in such a way that waste equals food, the we can continue to enjoy the standard of living to which we have become accustomed (and allow those who have never enjoyed it to have access to it as well).

This will require changes in how we produce things, and how we provide these goods to consumers (products of service), and to some extent changes in what we produce (personal transportation may still be available, but private gas-powered automobiles will not).

The actions of the ideologically pure notwithstanding, most people (particularly the poor) will NEVER willingly reduce their consumption sufficiently, nor will their governments impose this reduction.  The only way that we will achieve the dramatic reductions in the consumption of goods and services that Monbiot seems to want is via collapse.  Which is what we're trying to avoid, after all.

That said, population is a big issue.  It may not be the most immediate issue, but it is clearly the most important because no production system, no matter how ecological, is perfect and no finite planet can support an infinite population of corporeal beings.

Relevant in the context of Monbiot's piece because one of the points that they make when they do presentations is that the gorilla in the room is population growth, in the sense that their math ultimately comes down to three variables: consumption per capita, productivity per acre and total capitas.  Enviros talk a lot about the first,  business types talk a lot about the second, but the third is politically toxic.  (Note that they don't advocate a position - simply point out that you can't have this conversation independent of population.)

Worth digging around their website if you haven't seen their stuff before.

I certainly know who I think is the most persistent, and persistently annoying troll.  But execrable?  That's harder.

if you frame political issues in terms of morality, then you just challenge people's sense of self worth.  Not a winning argument, and not a reliable path to progress

give people a sense of practical changes; make the way forward a reasonable choice

that is one reason why building an alternative energy industry, brick by brick, is such an important priority, in my view

Anyway, back to Jimmy Carter.  Hectoring the public about its failure to live up to ideals; no practical solutions identified.  Exact opposite of leadership.  Plus, his "faith in the future" as a foundation of American history was inaccurate, as a matter of history

but that is what comes from zealotry

he says it when an opportunity arises

like there are not a couple grist
"contributors" who are not one-trick ponies

and you call him a troll?

a most vile troll?

what up girlfriend?

Taiwan set to hold UN referendums
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7222531.stm

Recent Chinese rail transit problems may play to their favor (also shows why state controlled centralized rail is a bad idea).

Maybe a Kuomintang government would sign up for some of your "international" accords...

Here's their flag...pretty cool looking:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/White_sun%2 ...

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

   Actually, this last year saw the Kuomintang become best friends with the Chinese government.  Most Taiwanese seem to favor the status quo, but I bet that many of the Kuomintang leaders will come to Beijing for the Olympics!!!  

   (It is going to be amazing!!  Any bettors?? (smile).

   In terms of this thread in general, Monbiot is mostly right.

   We have the technical ability to solve our problems.  But the unwillingness of the well off to do their share may block the whole plan.

   Population is being addressed (with resistance, not from the poor, but from the rich (in America) who don't want to provide the pittance it would take to help solve this problem).

   It's really the first issue that we are failing to address.  

   Cassandra runs down the street yelling "consumption, consumption".

patrick in Beijing