Unfortunately for them, every one of their predictions in "The Limits to Growth" have been proven false.

As an alternative, try reading Nonlinear Thinking.

My sense is that environmental radicals tend to be point people. This makes their long-term forecasts particularly suspect. For long-term forecasting, nonlinear thinking is best. Linear approximations may work well for forecasts one or two years ahead. Point-based thinking is rarely accurate for more than a few months in today's dynamic economy.

For example, an environmentalist might take the ratio of oil consumption to world GDP as a point and the forecast for world GDP in 50 years as another point. The environmentalist might then conclude that we will not have enough oil in fifty years.

The economist Robert Solow showed what was wrong with this type of thinking thirty years ago. At that time, the "Club of Rome" had what they claimed was a complex, nonlinear model which forecast environmental catastrophe. However, because their analysis took no account of prices, technical substitution, or technological change, it was no better than a point-based tool for forecasting. One of the speakers at this year's Pop!tech, Geoffrey Ballard, pointed out that every prediction made by the Club of Rome has been false.

Prices, technical substitution, and technical change are very important factors when attempting to predict future trends. Back in the 18th century, England was facing a severe energy crisis as the supply of firewood was becoming short. They switched to coal. Likewise, as demand for oil drives up the price, other forms of energy will become economically viable. The doomsayers seem to think that humans are incapable of adapting to change. To the contrary, all of human history (and prehistory) shows us constantly adapting to change, often of the most severe type such as ice ages, droughts, famine, wars, and the like. Are today's humans less capable of adaption than our prehistoric ancestors? I think not.