Could you state the problem clearly please. What is your solution?
I probably don't have a solution - I certainly don't have one that could be accepted.
The problem is the rate at which we can recycle our resources - and this totally ignores any GW issues.
The problems come about because of these conditions:
10% of the world population consumes 90% of the worlds "active" resources.The "average" person in the world lives in a one or two room house or apartment with little or no yard. They probably easy have access to water and possibly even water in their own house. The water is unlikely to be safe to drink without further processing. The average house is likely to have intermittent electrical power for up to 6 hours per day.
The average household is unlikely to have a form of motorised transport but may have bicycle or animal transport. The average household probably has to travel up to 24hours to access basic health care.
Think poor rural Mexican and your there.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live like that. I don't want my kids to live like that either.
The problems come about because this is happening:
China, India and Indonesia are rapidly industrialising, which is creating a middle class and a consumer society. They want more, consume more and are no longer satisfied with less.
Basic supply and demand states quite clearly that this demand pushes up prices for all basic goods. Increased demand means it will be increasing difficult and expensive (and eventually impossible) to maintain our lifestyles while the 90% of the rest of the world is increasingly becoming modern consumers. There is no way to stop that growth.
The proposed solutions are:
to increase resource extraction and thereby increase the amount of active resource in the world. This delays catastrophic failure but does not prevent it. With massive expansion of mining and other resource extraction might be increased by 2 to 3 times perhaps, even 10 times if we can mine the depths of the sea, but the current population will require 80 times that amount if they were to develop to the average level of consumption in the developed world.
to recycle - or more correctly to recycle faster. Our best efforts to date have been, collectively, pitiful. Even recycling that is, overall
90% efficient falls short of needs by nearly an order of magnitude.And all of this is under the most optimistic projection that assumes that energy is unlimited and consumed with little consequence.
The nettle no one wants to grasp is that the entire world has to control it's population. We resist this proposition because we already have too many people and a decreasing population is an invitation to negative economic growth and negative profits (that case is not inevitable but it would require careful management to avoid). No one and no business is prepared for the restrictions required. No government is game to enforce them on their people.
(The possible exception is China who put out the one child policy with just this situation in mind, only they were thinking of it in a limited regional context)
No GW. Just the weight of humanity needing more. That is the end of my "green" speech. BTW, the quote "we have failed..." is from David Suzuki.