For my part, I think that is very bad news indeed. But if one thinks that climate change is the most pressing concern then you really ought to be pleased about that, since to date income growth correlates pretty closely with energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission. If - according to your hypothesis - incomes had risen, then the planet would be in much worse shape.
"Almost everyone, even the poorest among us, contributes, unless you live like the Unabomber ... anyone who drives a car, flips on an electric light, or uses wood products adds to the problem"
Well, that's a grim view you have there, Doug, and a good argument against Patrick's proposed addition of two billion electricity users ... but not one I share.
"I'm not calling for a reduction in average living standards. I am calling for greatly reduced energy use and less polluting forms of energy."
Greatly reduced energy use without reducing living standards ... I don't think that is possible, not on the basis of extant technology. And renewable energy sources have made little more than a pinprick in overall consumption.
"It's a lot more convenient when you can dismiss human-driven climate change as either a hoax or unproven"
Well, I suspect it is bullshit, but reading what I am able to undertand in the IPCC report, then certainly it does not seem that the environmental catastrophes that are sketched out are justified by the science. But to answer the point, yes, I have to admit, on a personal level, my life is a whole lot more convenient not worrying about problems that I cannot do anything about.
But seriously, if you believed what you say, I think you would inconvenience yourself a bit more. I don't mean wear a hair shirt, necessarily, but I think it would be incumbent on you to abandon your commitment to social betterment and embrace the programme of austerity, income reduction, and probably population reduction as well that flows from the belief that we are burning up the planet.