Saving energy, finding alternatives to fossil energies like oil and gas or reducing the consumption of natural resources in general, are not only a reasonable way to respond to a possible climate change. They are also a good possibility to handle the threats that arise from Peak Oil, overpopulation or the ascent of new economic giants like Brazil, Russia, India or China. And they are a good opportunity to reduce the dependency of Western nations from insecure providers such as Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Russia or Iraq. An argument even hardcore conservatives like George Bush seem to understand.
World population could reach 9 billion at the end of the century. The population of the US could grow to 750 million or more until 2100. Many scientists are convinced that the world population is already to large to allow all people - without dramatic changes in production and consumption - the same standard of living as the existing industrialized countries.
Pessimistic observers see the sustainable level of population for the US in the range of 300 million ( with the current consumption habits ), a number it has reached now.
Future generations of human beings, and many people already living, will not be able to enjoy a comparable level of wealth without serious changes in economic structures, consumption habits, energy production or the use of natural resources. And the coming scarcity of natural resources could lead to violent conflicts that may cost the industrialized world much more ( in the financial and non-financial sense ) than an early orientation of our economies towards possible challenges like climate change. Doing nothing could be much more expensive than acting premature. The difficulties to develop our economies could take a lot more time than is now foreseeable. And the point of no-return could be reached [much] faster than many believe.
— A commenter on Economist’s View