Matt Ridley says “no”:

I have lived among both tribes. I studied various forms of ecology in an academic setting for seven years and then worked at the Economist magazine for eight years. When I was an ecologist (in the academic sense of the word, not the political one, though I also had antinuclear stickers on my car), I very much espoused the carrying-capacity viewpoint—that there were limits to growth. I nowadays lean to the view that there are no limits because we can invent new ways of doing more with less.

This disagreement goes to the heart of many current political issues and explains much about why people disagree about environmental policy. In the climate debate, for example, pessimists see a limit to the atmosphere’s capacity to cope with extra carbon dioxide without rapid warming. So a continuing increase in emissions if economic growth continues will eventually accelerate warming to dangerous rates. But optimists see economic growth leading to technological change that would result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would allow warming to level off long before it does much harm.

I made a similar point about nine years ago:

The only hope for the planet is to get more of it to operate on the principles of the market, and individual choice. There are two competing approaches. The first is responding hysterically to problems that won’t occur for many decades (Kyoto being a prime example) which will reduce current wealth to the point that if and when those problems actually occur, we won’t have the financial wherewithal to be able to deal with them. The second is to use those resources wisely, per their most productive uses (i.e., responding to market pricing) to create the wealth necessary to create new resources.

There are many things wrong with our current approach to such things (e.g., the fishery problem), but the nostrums proposed by most “environmentalists” (who tend to be socialists and command economists in green clothing, even if many don’t recognize that) would make things worse, not better. Headlines like that in the Guardian article, implying that resources are a static quantity, of which we’ve already used two thirds, are just the kinds of misinformation that lead to flawed policy decisions, and reduction of wealth, and ultimately reductions of “resources.”

The problem is that the environmental movement has been hijacked by socialists and others completely ignorant of technology and economics.