[rc white]

I agree the in the end we are probably faced with a damage limitation exercise and all we can really do is to try and limit the overall amount of suffering involved.
Having said this we still need some basis for an ambition towards sustainability and the major obstacle I can see is the belief that economics somehow exists outside the physical realities of the planet, and the so called "economic realities" take precedence, even though the physical reality is that something can't be done.

This was brought home to me some years ago when the CSIRO in Australia published a study about the ecology and carrying capacity of the country.
A television program about this featured economists and politicians who almost withought exception said that whilst the science was very good the report did not take into account the economic realities there fore must be disregarded.

This left me ranting at the television words to the effect that economic reality must be based upon physical reality to be viable in any ultimate sense.
It seems that as long as politicians play slavish regard to the utterance's of economists, and as long as economists think that their "dismal science" somehow is outside of and can disregard physical reality, then it will be business as usual, what can be done if they ever wake up to the fact that you really can't get a quart out of a pint pot, is as far as I can see the major issue.
rcw