A long term reason for optimism?

Findings - Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet - NYTimes.com

John Tierney will cop a lot of flack for running these predictions:

1. There will be no green revolution in energy or anything else. No leader or law or treaty will radically change the energy sources for people and industries in the United States or other countries. No recession or depression will make a lasting change in consumers’ passions to use energy, make money and buy new technology — and that, believe it or not, is good news, because...

2. The richer everyone gets, the greener the planet will be in the long run.

I don't doubt the point about the rich being greener than the poor. (It's also the assured way of containing population growth.)

But the problem is, will the attainment of average global wealth of sufficient size to "green" the planet take place fast enough to prevent a disastrous accumulation of CO2?

It has occurred to me before that it might just be possible that, regardless of (probably unsuccessful) attempts at effective CO2 limiting treaties, foreseeable (or even unforeseen) changes to energy technology might just mean that CO2 production is rapidly contained over the next 50 years anyway.

Of course, if James Hanson is right, that's far too late. But, if God is really smiling upon the planet, a milder version of the Maunder minimum might buy the nations enough time to prepare for a return to higher than normal temperatures. Of course, that's assuming that people could be persuaded during a mini ice age that global warming was still a threat - which is probably a big ask!

Also, a really severe mini-ice age is not likely to help, I guess, as it would be reason to not cut back on coal fired power generation in those countries undergoing bad winters.

Anyway, there's always ocean acidification to worry about regardless of temperatures.