Brian doesn't! Although the basic premisses are possibly correct, I
don't believe in the pessimistic conclusions drawn. Homo sapiens is too
tenacious a species to permit a die-off, although I do forecast a slow
population decline. We have the knowledge, means and technology to
change from a carbon economy to an essentially non-carbon one but it
needs commitment. If the money that the USA, the UK and others have
pumped into Iraq (for what purpose?) over the last few years had been
directed to this problem, so that we did not need Iraqi oil, we would
already be half-way to making the transition. The problem is not one of
technology, but of so-called democracy, because politicians are not good
enough salesemen to buy enough votes in the next election, if they
promote unpopular moves. This is where China has a big advantage over
us. For example, they can build nuke power stations ad inf. and the
population acclaims the government for foreseeing the need to provide
abundant, low cost, electric power. Other than a few forward-looking
countries, such as France and Finland, the West quakes in its boots
because politicians fear the onslaught of the eco-politicians with their
misinformation, disinformation and downright lies regarding carbon-free
power generation. And when I see that some Western countries use less
than 35% of the energy they import/produce, it is easy to see where to
tackle the problem: start by eliminating half the wasted energy and you
will cut GHG emissions by half and double the time interval to Peak Oil
or other fossil fuels. Combine that with an aggressive
renewables/nuclear/transport policy as I suggested in my post of 17 Feb,
  and we shall not suffer from the effects of Peak Oil.

Brian

MA/NY DDave wrote:
> Hi David, EnViroN,
>
> OK I found Olduvai, in the link you gave, yet you can elaborate if you wish
> to the EnViroN audience.
>
> YiEngr, MA/NY DDave
>
> P.S. Again I hope Brian approves of most of this web site's data
>