suppressing fossil fuel production, which is part and parcel of so called decarbonization will strengthen populism which can smoothly transition into fascism with nukes. Populism emerged in developed countries because of a strong downward pressure on living standards that cannot be fixed by playing with money. You can't eat money.

The numbers are pretty clear and stark. If one wants to extend North American oil consumption per capita to 8 billion people, oil production has to go up by ~600%. To the EU level, by ~300%. This is the scale of the problem and it will get worse before it gets better.

In some ways you can have your cake and eat it too. I am in favor of subsidizing alternatives to fossil fuels to give them the market push, while at the same time making sure that there is enough energy to go around ,which requires continuing investment in fossil fuels by the private sector. For this to happen we have to stop demonizing carbon dioxide and squash the hyperventilating catastrophism that has nothing to do with reality. No catastrophe is happening ,just predictions of the catastrophe that have been around ever since I can remember, I am old, so I went through quite a few tipping points, including when we were surely sliding into an ice age in the 1970-ies.

As far as the population growth is concerned. The growth occurred mostly in the developing world because of culturally sudden reduction in the mortality of the young. The only country that moderated this growth was China, using pretty drastic measures. You can't stop it, really, it has to run its course. Nonetheless, there are consequences of this growth that one needs to be aware of. I mentioned these consequences in the previous post.

World elites appear to be living in a bubble which is increasingly disconnected from reality. The "Humanity" needs to focus on overcoming the consequences of XXth century population growth, not on chimeras of climate change. As I said, the time remaining is short and there are plenty of nukes to go around if this all deteriorates into social implosions followed by wars, as in 1930-ies.

And finally, we need to return environmentalism to its proper function, protecting the environment, not playing fashionable politics. The developing world will face environmental devastation due to overpopulation, which can be stopped only by pulling people out of poverty, which requires energy. Meanwhile, the developed world will face intensifying migration pressures, not because of climate, but because of the interaction between climate fluctuations and overpopulation. Old fashioned fluctuations, like periodic droughts.

Dear Professor Frankel,
Apologies.
I prefaced that I might be doing something wrong, but the file is titled "vvv_jul18abstr.pdf", so I incorrectly assumed it was just the abstract as the name suggests.
I will certainly read the paper and, although I may disagree with this article, I respect and am grateful for your immediate attention and response, including the care about my name.

Cheers,
Claudio Migliore

In my reply, I misspelled MIGLIORE. Sorry. -- JF