> I understand that argument and would like to have the debate about the trade-offs. But flatly denying isn't helping us move forward. You are right in saying

> I understand that argument and would like to have the debate about the trade-offs. But flatly denying isn't helping us move forward. You are right in saying that it is at its heart an economic question. Unfortunately, an economic model based on ever-increasing consumption of physical goods, combined with a large population with increased access to emission-creating technologies doesn't seem compatible with our mid-term survival (not to mention the rate at which non-renewable resources are consumed). But sticking your head the sand is much easier than come out and say that hard choices are coming.