The debate you are proposing, Daivd, is the wrong one. For at least two reasons:

1. You imply (and have stated clearly elsewhere that you believe) that the science is not settled. Yet the hypothesis that carbon Dioxide and other gases might cause an inclreas in global avetrage temperatures is well over a century old. It has survived many challenges already. By now the evidence to support the hypothesis is highly visible.

2. You imply (and have stated clearly elsewhere that you believe) that the momentum behind the proposed shift away from fossil fuels is politically motivated. Yet mainstream political parties of left right and centre, across the globe, have either ignored or actively resisted calls for change. This is because they are unable to turn away from the percieved imperative to maintain economic growth. Only in the last few hyears have some politicians begun to face reallity. It is also the case that many of the proposed 'solutions' are themselves dependent upon maintaining economic growth.

The debate we should be having is just that: addessing two questions:

1. What are the real costs and benefits of endless economic growth?

2. What does a future without economic growth look like? This one, of course, has several sub-sets of questions: at what level of economic activity should a steady state be set? The present level, as we were ten, twenty, fifty years or more ago? What sacrifices will have to be made? Who will make them?

This is far more urgent than trying to re-run a debate that has already taken place.