One one hand this will likely prompt many in this country to respond with the age-old (and childish) attitude that if Asian countries are going to be increasing CO2 emissions regardless of what we do then why should we worry about decreasing ours.

Then there's the issue of how to convince developing economies to get on board with environmentally sound policies. Maybe economic incentives? You'd kind of think that it would be in their best interest, and give them a leg up on the rest of the world, to build their economies based on the latest solar/renewable technologies.

We always pick the low-hanging fruit first. In other words, the principles of expediency and least cost rule everything we do, especially when we act in large social groups like nations. So long as fossil fuels hang lower than renewables in terms of both cost and expediency, nations playing economic catch-up will be predisposed to use them. Economics and human nature trump abstract moral persuasion and future risk, especially when we are faced with a strong perceived need.

IMO there are two things that could change the direction of this development. The first would be a dramatic shift in the ecological infrastructure on which civilization is built, for example climate change reducing the global food supply. The second would be a contagious rupture of the transportation, information and governance webs that knit civilization together. This could happen through the combination of growing system complexity and declining availability (whether physical or financial) of the energy needed to keep the complexity intact and growing. I do not believe that either voluntary, controlled degrowth or a simple shift in technologies will play much of a role in this shift.

Those two scenarios (changing ecological conditions and disruptions of command, communication, control and distribution systems) appear likely to interact and unfold together. In many vulnerable places on the planet they appear to be already in play. The prospects for reversing this process before the damage becomes severe now appear to be slim-to-none.

..the planet will live on, the human parasites, not so much...

Some stuff that isn't cherry-picked for your fave doomsday scenario:

- China's installed solar PV capacity increased by 161.4%, from 7000 to 18300 megawatts. Their installed capacity is exceeded only by Germany's. There is zero reason to believe, given the very rapid decrease in the cost of solar, that they won't repeat that feat this year. At that rate of increase they'll surpass Germany in two years at most.

- India's increased by 94.8%, to 2291 from 1176. The same consideration for this year's increase that applies to China applies to India.

- Japan's (!!) increased by 102%, from 6743 to 13643. No reason, once again, to think this year's increase would be any different.

So yes, Asia Pacific's CO2 emissions are rising rapidly. No, they're not sitting on their hands not doing anything about it. Quite the opposite. In just these three countries, for just solar PV, total installed capacity in megawatts more than doubled, from 14919 to 34234.
In short, the assumption behind your posting of that graph, that nothing is being done, is not so. What is true is that modern renewable tech only got off the ground a few years ago. It's going to take a few years more for it to make a dent, but once it starts to, the effect will be very rapid.
The limiting factor is overcoming the need for backup, as both solar and wind are intermittent. All kinds of people all over the world are working on solving that problem, and given the enormous economic incentive, someone is going to get it right very soon.

Link to source (which you carefully didn't provide): http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

There's a button on there where you can download an Excel sheet and see all the figures, not just those cherry-picked by someone with an obvious agenda.

Direct link: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/Energy-Economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-Statistical_Review_of_world_energy_2014_workbook.xlsx

Everyone with an opinion speaks or acts with an agenda. I am no different.
All data is "cherry-picked". There is simply too much data in the world to include it all.

My position can be falsified by demonstrating a reduction in global CO2 emissions that is attributable to technology shifts. The declining cost and rising use of solar and wind is not yet slowing the global rise in CO2 emissions. Ergo, my position has not yet been falsified.

My point is not that "nothing is being done". Rather, it's that no matter what we do, the global situation is worsening. I believe this ongoing worsening of our ecological predicament is irreversible - as are all thermodynamic processes - due to the atmospheric dwell time of CO2 and our steadily increasing emissions.

To me this suggests that people might consider spending more of their time, money and energy on personal preparation for an inevitably constrained future.

We might actually be (temporarily) below 400 ppm by, oh, mid-July.

This comment is an attempt to clarify my supposed "agenda" in posting pieces like this.

The way I see it, the problem is not so much a question of a particular agenda as it is one of worldview. To put it bluntly, I have a very different worldview from most environmentalists. This causes no end of misunderstanding, because it's natural to assume that other people in one's culture share the culture's narrative, at least to some extent. To make matters worse, most people assume that their own view is the right one, and that any views that differ are simply wrong. Of course, anyone who makes that assumption is wrong...

My process of deconstructing the dominant Western cultural narrative began in earnest back in 2006 when I was writing my first article on world population. Similar to the Aussie researcher at 1:23 in the video linked below, I realized that reducing the global population to one billion by the end of the century would require an excess mortality rate on the order of ten WWII-scale events happening concurrently, every year for the next 75 years. We are "unlikely" to create such a mortality event deliberately, even to save the rest of the biosphere - which would not emerge unscathed in any event.

As a result, I've abandoned all expectation that humanity will, or even can, do anything major enough to reverse global population growth.

Over the last year and a half I've completed the demolition the scientific/socialist worldview I learned from my parents and my culture. In its place I've built a view of human behavior based on a synthesis of discoveries in thermodynamics, biology, ecology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, complex systems and cybernetics.

Given what I've discovered about human nature through my readings in evolutionary psychology, along with hints from anthropology, I'm convinced that people don't change their behavior or beliefs until they are forced to do so by circumstances. The world changes, and we adapt to it. Also, humans seem to be very poor at implementing negative or damping feedbacks in social systems, and very proficient at creating positive amplifying feedbacks.

I've also discovered that, contrary to popular belief, groups are not simply aggregates of individuals. Instead, they are emergent "organisms" in their own right. Groups follow behavioral rules that are very different from those of their component individuals. (We can see this on a smaller scale in the phenomenon of "groupthink".) It appears to be virtually impossible to change the behavior of large groups by changing the beliefs of individual members, so long as the underlying physical or social environment doesn't require, or at least support, that change.

To go a bit further afield, the world revealed by this framework is one in which humans have very little agency beyond purely personal matters. Essentially there is no free will when it comes to group behaviors. Most human behavior, and especially most behavior in a group context, is driven by a combination of evolutionary imperatives, previous experience, environmental pressures, and emotions - primarily fear of one sort or another. We make most of our decisions unconsciously, driven by pressures we aren't even aware of.

Finally, from thermodynamics I've understood the concept of irreversibility, and applied that principle to human systems.

Now, put those ideas of irreversibility, emergent group behaviors, positive feedbacks and limited or non-existent human agency together in an environment of overpopulation, overconsumption, declining material and energy resources, declining ecological infrastructure, and overly complex and fragile global systems of command, control, information and distribution. The picture of the near and medium term future that emerges is not pretty, no matter how much lipstick one may apply to the details.

As a result, I've taken my hands off the tiller. I'm no longer trying to steer either events or opinions. Whether the topic is population, consumption, politics, economics, energy or ecology, I have largely abdicated to the position of witness rather than advocate. As a result, I find myself commenting only rarely and lightly these days on such topics.

As you might imagine, the gulf between this view and that of a typical renewable energy advocate is exceedingly large - wide enough to make constructive discussion difficult.

Frankly, it's a saddening position to hold, and I'm hoping that Frijtof Capra's new book may give me a way of re-framing my knowledge and views in slightly less despairing terms. But for now this is where I am.

I hope this explanation serves to clarify why I focus on the things I do, and why I say things the way I do.

Cheers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=r8mEMxDRU9Q#t=5022

the self-proclaimed "elite" have access to the cure, the antidote, then:

perfect, in the context of Catholic Christian culture... right? Classic.

Otherwise, I'm a damned lucky evolutionary biologist with this opportunity to witness a rare mass extinction event up close and personal. That's bigger than knowing Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein in my book.

If we keep our wits about us we can respond to the catastrophe we've made with grace and without violence, ensuring the safe migration of our fellow sentient beings, human and non-human, into a radically changed world.

My own interest would be managing our coastal retreat, removing and recycling human infrastructure before the ocean eats it, and establishing robust "natural" ecosystems just one step ahead of the rising seas.

The science is easier than the politics. How do you convince the billionaire that it's time to tear down and relocate his ports, fancy hotels, and beach homes? And what about all those ordinary people who have built their homes, family traditions, and lifestyles on increasingly shifty sands?

Humanity bought this horror, now we have to own it.