Yes, I overreacted, but the issue remains: conservation can only go so far when the ultimate objective is to eliminate use of all fossil fuels. And it is clear that a major piece of that problem has to do with the large human population; even at the level it's at now, it's probably not sustainable without the concentrated and easily transported energy available from fossil fuels. I personally will not be part of it for much longer, anyway. But many if not most of our problems ultimately stem from that.

What actually is a sustainable population? The numbers I threw out are based on some articles and papers seen over the past 10 years. But they're still speculation, and sometimes not based on rigorous analysis.

Note also that I agreed that natural gas is the lowest-carbon alternative among fossil fuels, which makes it desirable but still a fossil fuel. Natural gas (methane) can also be obtained from non-fossil sources in small amounts.

That said, I'm sorry for the last dig. It was unnecessary. Sorry, I'm not a S.C.member and probably will never be; besides my inability to resist things like that comment, I'm actually more middle-of-the-road than would be acceptable there. But that's not an excuse for my comment. Apology...