Not to shake the hornet's nest, but CO2 and other GHG are pollution.

Pollution has been dramatically reduced since the environmental movement in the 1960-1970’s.

Some highlights:
*Limits to discharge to both air and water of heavy metals, BOD and other harmful chemicals by industry
*Reduction in acid rain from using lower sulfur coal plus scrubbers
*Banning or restricting persistent pesticides like DDT and chloradane
*Secondary and tertiary treatment of municipal sewage by aeration and chlorination

I worked in industry throughout this period and saw the change first hand. I also recall the days when smog from the steel mills in Birmingham, AL, USA and the industrial Midwest darkened the skies for sometimes over 100 miles away as I witnessed driving on heavy pollution days when I seemed to stay in the haze for hours. The improvement since those days is amazing.

My main criticism is that we throw away nutrients in sewage. If we do not recycle all phosphorous the world will be unable to support anything like the current population in less than 100 years.

Retired people usually use much less resources than young people starting families.

Hmmm -- not so sure.
The thing is when you "retired" you become a tax on the working society. A certain part of the net energy gain has to be spent on sustaining that populace -- health care products and services are the most obvious. The cost of raising a child from 0-17 is about $100K in the US (if you take out the housing cost). The life expectancy of people managed reaching retirement age is about "age+15". If the government is giving out 12K/year for Social Security -- that alone is $180K -- not counting other retirement vehicles and medical liabilities. People might argue that they paid for it during their working years -- but looking at our current accounting of debt and obligations, there is a huge mismatch somewhere, both past and present.

Young people starting a family sure cost resource. However, creating a child becomes a drag on resource because of the world we built it -- not because of "creating a child". Once human learn to live within the mean provided by nature, human will be okie. The birth of a child will be similar to a birth of a whale or a bird -- no real net of cost of anything.

"I have come to believe that it is increasing levels of energy consumption that cause the demographic transition, not women's education, literacy, or anything else non-energy related."

You might want to provide something quantitative that supports this idea.

The US uses much more energy, and yet has much higher fertility than Japan and Europe (about replacement). That doesn't support this idea. On the other hand, I believe there's a pretty good correlation between women's freedom and lower fertility. You might want to look at the literature.

"Of course, perhaps, deus ex machina, some new source of energy will come along "

It's already here: wind, solar, nuclear. High EROEI, reasonable cost, essentially unlimited resources (even nuclear).

Bytesmiths

"Most often, people say women's increasing levels of education produce a drop in fecundity. But I have come to believe that it is increasing levels of energy consumption that cause the demographic transition, not women's education, literacy, or anything else non-energy related."

I think it is probably simpler than this. It is just human nature to want what we haven't got. If your great opportunity to have some prosperity rather than poverty is to pursue education and have less children you will pursue this. If you live in a wealthy economy and are materially successful you may want to fight the emptiness by reconnecting with family and tribe through the joy of children.

We want to skip the old mistakes of our heritage which is a positive thing. I suppose what this means for an energy constrained future is limiting the number of our children to improve their chances of survival.