There's so many credible voices out there, there's no need for Tony's maunderings. I certainly won't support any organization that puts him on the masthead. Pam Anderson has more respectability.

I have read the speech; I have not yet read the report. I must say that most of the points expressed therein are quite reasonable? Do I agree with all of them? Do I believe they are all accurate? No, but that is to be expected. No one is right or perfectly knowledgeable on any issue, myself included.

There is only one point that really bothered me. At one point the speech reads "There may be a gap between what it is reasonable to do; and what is necessary for the climate to survive."
I fail to see how this could possibly be accurate. If the global climate does not survive, how could we? This phrasing seems to indicate a complete failure of the global climate, something which, if it were to occur, could very well lead to the extinction of the human race. Precisely what kind of action would not be reasonable under such circumstances?

Beyond that doomsday scenario, he even freely admits that on timescales longer than a couple of decades, economic growth requires that we live green. If governments, who are charged with the well being of those aspects of society that private actions cannot or will not account for, are unable to take action beyond the terms of office of politicians, then we have a problem. It seems that our perspective has gotten so small that we cannot think beyond an election cycle. So either we come up with a plan that yields economic benefits at every stage, not just at the end; or, we take no action; or, we live under a more "stable" government with a longer time horizon: monarchy or despotism would be realistic choices.

Here in the U.S., we went from an agrarian society to an industrial nation in about 100 years. In that timespan we built a national system of roads, grids for water and electricity, power plants, factories, oil refineries, gas stations, pipelines, universities, public education, and countless other things, all from the whole cloth of an undeveloped nation with almost no industry. Are we really willing to admit today, when our wealth and technology are vastly greater than anything our early nineteenth century forebears could have possibly dreamed about, that we can't update our country in 40 years?

Think about what it would take. A few hundred nuclear power plants, maybe a thousand if we use the energy to also power vehicles. Wind and solar farms as well, as much as we can manage. Energy and water efficiency upgrades for our homes, cars, and commercial and industrial buildings. Expansion of recycling programs. More modern grids. And the end result would be a nation far wealthier than we have today, less dependent on foreign interests, able to continue to grow for centuries to come without destroying itself or the world it lives in.