There's no need for any additional commentary. Here's the report. Read it for yourself.
Here are excerpts of the report published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society:
"...today, for the first time, humanity's global civilization—the
worldwide, increasingly interconnected, highly technological society in
which we all are to one degree or
another, embedded—is threatened with collapse by an
array of environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what
Prince Charles described as ‘an act of suicide on a
grand scale’ , facing what the UK's Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a ‘perfect storm’ of environmental problems .
The most serious of these problems show signs of rapidly escalating
severity, especially climate disruption. But other
elements could potentially also contribute to a
collapse: an accelerating extinction of animal and plant populations and
which could lead to a loss of ecosystem services
essential for human survival; land degradation and land-use change; a
spread of toxic compounds; ocean acidification and
eutrophication (dead zones); worsening of some aspects of the
environment (factors that make human populations
susceptible to infectious diseases); depletion of increasingly scarce
[6,7], including especially groundwater, which is being overexploited in many key agricultural areas ; and resource wars .
These are not separate problems; rather they interact in two gigantic
complex adaptive systems: the biosphere system and
the human socio-economic system. The negative
manifestations of these interactions are often referred to as ‘the human
, and determining how to prevent it from generating a global collapse is perhaps the foremost challenge confronting humanity.
"...to support today's population of seven billion sustainably
(i.e. with business as usual, including current technologies and
standards of living)
would require roughly half an additional planet; to
do so, if all citizens of Earth consumed resources at the US level
take four to five more Earths. Adding the projected
2.5 billion more people by 2050 would make the human assault on
life-support systems disproportionately worse,
because almost everywhere people face systems with nonlinear responses [11,21–23], in which environmental damage increases at a rate that becomes faster with each additional person.
"...a future global collapse does not require a careful definition. It could be triggered by anything from a ‘small’ nuclear
war, whose ecological effects could quickly end civilization ,
to a more gradual breakdown because famines, epidemics and resource
shortages cause a disintegration of central control
within nations, in concert with disruptions of
trade and conflicts over increasingly scarce necessities. In either
of survivors or replacement societies, the world
familiar to anyone reading this study and the well-being of the vast
of people would disappear."
What are we going to do about this? Apparently nothing.
"Unfortunately, essential steps such as curbing global emissions to peak by 2020 and reducing them to half of present levels
by 2050 
are extremely problematic economically and politically. Fossil fuel
companies would have to leave most of their proven reserves
in the ground, thus destroying much of the
industry's economic value . Because the ethics of some businesses [and Canadian governments] include knowingly continuing lethal but profitable activities , it is hardly surprising that interests with large financial stakes in fossil fuel burning have launched a gigantic and
largely successful disinformation campaign in the USA to confuse people about climate disruption [69,70] and block attempts to deal with it ."