1. Sounds frankly paranoid. There are lots of ways of "screwing with the little people" already. Carbon output reductions can be done by tax incentives instead

1. Sounds frankly paranoid. There are lots of ways of "screwing with the little people" already. Carbon output reductions can be done by tax incentives instead of a permitting system. And why would a scientific panel be interested in giving power to a bunch of political appointees? While we're speaking of money, how about the motivations of the people with the large stock portfolios they don't want to see devalued? The people with the kind of money to hire PR companies to, say, astroturf a conveniently timed "AWG is a lie" campaign? 2. You do realise that we are going to run out of resources on this planet eventually, right? Saying that we must keep on increasing economic activity at all costs lest disaster strike is a surefire way to guarantee disaster, not just via climate change but via overfishing, deforestation and the resulting land loss, pollution, etc. Also, the decrease in energy consumption is clearly not the cause of the depression, but rather one of its effects. Things can be done in a much more energy-efficient manner.