"Mind you that's not an exuse to do nothing"- but how do we know what's right? If all of the potential "doing something about it" options were free, or had zero negative impacts, then cool, let's do them all. But they aren't, and (apparently) time is limited, so where to start?
I think that this is why the environment issue is such a bastard. Obviously, no-one wants to destroy the earth, or whatever, but there's clearly competing and mutually exclusive goals here. Jeremy Clarkson wants it to be paved with exciting roads. Janet Street-Porter wants it to be full of walkers. I want it to be full of pubs. Cool ideas, all of them, but apt to get a bit messy, particularly if I drive home from the pubs along the footpaths used by the walkers.
So if the goals are mutually exclusive, who gets to call the shots? The Rich? Shall we start telling those poor people to stop with the cooking fires in Africa, and go with solar ovens? Or the poor, who want to reverse a few hundred years of spectacular progress in the West, and want to get us to use the solar ovens instead (good luck with that in the UK)?
My suggestion: let the market sort it out. Two/three hundred years ago, we were dependant upon whale oil to the extent we ran out of whales. Which are a renewable resource. When that crunch came, we switched to oil oil, and all worked out OK (At least as far as we can prove so far). And let's not forget how primitive our tech was when we made that switch to crude from whale.
So we should be able to come up with some pretty nifty solutions in the days of the iPod and stuff.
But not if we keep arguing about cuts.
So, scientists, get out there and start solving fusion or something. But enough fucking around with hockey sticks and trees. I don't care how bad the numbers look now, I want a bloody solution.