During the WRF we have been told that we had to limit our consumption, our growth, because if we didn't, we would reach the Earth's physical limit. I am sorry, but no speaker has come up with a good definition of what our physical limit was, with a good definition of what consumption should be. All they say was that we should change the trend ( decrease instead of increase ). But what if we were still in the boundaries of our physical limit ? If we really are above this " limit ", where is this limit ?  I haven't seen any figures. Once again, I expected more from this forum.  

If they want us to decrease our consumption level, what is then the right consumption level ? According to Robert Solow, it is the highest consumption level we can sustain forever. Let consider the problem as follow. Usually, when people have an asset ( like a natural resource ), they have two ways of consuming it. Either they consume the interest ( what it yields ) or the capital ( the asset itself ). In our concern, with forests for example, we shouldn't cut more trees than we can grow provided that we are at the maximised-consumption level. 

But what about oil for instance?  By nature, we can only consume the " capital " of the asset, its value can therefore only decrease ( provided that oil is non renewable ). We have used these non-renewable resources since the Paleolithic. But according to my definition, what is then the right consumption level ? None of them treated that question. I think it's a shame. 

Furthermore, nobody raised the question of resources ownership in order to preserve the resources. Yet, it is a key issue : If you own something, you will be more careful about it. 

This forum has been extremely general, and although some good initiatives and ideas have come up, it was far from enough. If the answer is not good, maybe we didn't raise the good questions.