To me, this a “water is wet” results of a study. But, I can’t run these sort of numbers myself. I’m glad someone did. Of course, few will believe it, most won’t read it.
tldr; 30% of world resources, leaving plenty of room to scale down carbon use and keep some luxuries
I admit this is fairly dense material with some terms that require some looking up. I tried to pick some highlights. I’m not claiming I can defend this, but I’m glad someone is trying. It’s an attempt to address the concern that if we relieve poverty it will either have an ecological cost or it will spread the problem of being poor across a wider population.
These are quotes from the link:
Near the beginning:
We do not need to accept a trade-off between well-being and ecology, and we do not need to accept the continuation of imperialist arrangements. The problem can be resolved with a different approach to the question of growth and poverty.
In section 2:
Of course, the objective of ensuring accessible prices is inseparable from the objective of shifting output from luxury items toward necessary goods, as this shifts the relevant supply curve to the right.
Conclusion
Poverty is not an intractable problem that requires complex solutions, long timeframes and large increases in production and throughput that conflict with ecological objectives. The solution is straightforward. We need to actively plan to shift productive capacities away from capital accumulation and elite consumption in order to focus instead on the goods and services that are necessary to meet human needs and enable decent living for all, while ensuring universal access through public provisioning systems.