I'm gonna try to make this less of a rant... This AGW argument - that man is the main (only) causer of global warming - makes no sense. Scientific evidence shows that curtailing man's pollution of the environment helps nature's ecosystems to rejuvenate. However, there are no scientific studies that prove reducing man's effect on the environment will greatly reduce effects of global warming. For example, to allow the reformation of ice at the poles for the sake of penguins and polar bears. Yet, this is the ONLY measure that environmentalists use to lessen the effects of global warming: lessen man's effect on the environment. When did environmentalists first have this dogma?
The false argument that fossil fuels are unsustainable because they aren't currently being produced... will only be true if governments halt the refinement of fossil fuels. For example, The EPA is attempting to make refining (and transporting) fossil fuels harder and harder to do in the US .. maybe because the agency believes man is the main causer of global warming? Right now, we have an abundance of fossil fuels and are finding more pockets of fossil fuels all the time.
There are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels to run our cars and industry, and it's been predicted that any viable alternative would take at least 30 years to develop (even if the US attempted a 'moon shot' for alternative fuels). What do we use for fuels in the mean time? Are we dependent on Middle Eastern and South American oil?