I agree with Ludwig:

The idea about the necessity for shifting away from our dependence on fossil fuels existed long before the carbon hoax.

This has nothing to do with cooling or warming, but with the fact that the energy from life-forms that were deposited in the ground over 1-2 billion years is now consumed at a rate of about 1000 years per hour. This cannot go on, and is totally unfair towards those intelligent species that may rise on this planet perhaps a few millions of years after homo-sapiens are gone.

The temporary solution is nuclear, but with current population levels, even that will be used up in about 1000 years. We ultimately need to reduce human numbers, ideally to some 6-digit number.

Incomunicardo, a sustainable economy will have to do a lot of recycling.
Re rare earths, well they are not needed for electric motors as DC
motors have field windings and alternators have excitors on the same shaft.
The rare earths are needed for a few purposes where strong magnets are needed
but we can get on fine without them.

Rhrosty, I saw an article on EV World that would interest you.
A company has designed an electric with fuel cell technology with
900 mile range, fueled it said with salt water.
Did not explain more than that.

Now Yuyutsu, how do you think the hydrocarbons on that moon of Jupiter, or is it Saturn, [look it up for your self] got there. What life forms do you think deposited that lot.

Could you perhaps consider that our hydrocarbons arrived here just like our water, via comet? It is much more likely, just doesn't suit the current elite thinking, of preserving it all for them, & getting rid of the overpopulation of us peasants.

Some of you people are so naive. You'll believe almost anything that comes from an author with PhD after their name.

If you are going to worry about what happens in 1000 years mate, you've given yourself a problem. I can think of thousands of nasty scenario that could come to pass in such a period. Running out of Nuclear fuel is so far down the list of nasties it doesn't register.

Well Don has done it again. Mostly he has kept away from the science in this piece, which is a good thing because Don has shown over and over again that he doesn't understand the science.

But Don couldn't quite help himself and dropped into "Sixth, the evidence continues to mount that carbon dioxide is not, after all, the control knob of the planet's temperature" Well Don, no the evidence is not continuing to mount in that direction. The scientific evidence, as published is continuing to mount in the opposite direction: CO2 concentrations have a significant effect on the Earth’s climate – stopping us from freezing solid for a start. It is only those vigorous voices that mistake weather for climate who are confusing themselves and everyone else.

What Don indulges in here is an appeal to popularity. ‘No-one else is seriously trying to reduce CO2 emissions, therefore they can’t be important’.

“In the developing world, people want cheap energy, and seem uninterested in the debate about carbon dioxide and its impact, if any, on the planet's average temperature.” When you are having trouble feeding and educating your family, it is hard to get concerned about problems that will arise in 40 years’ time.

But as we are all doomed anyway, perhaps we should just continue on as we are comfortable in the knowledge that we will have amassed the biggest number of toys before it all goes pear-shaped.

In general this article is vaguely right in it's assessment of our relevance in the greater scheme of things, but's that's about the best I can say about it. His initial assumptions are erroneous from my point of view so any conclusions he reaches are irrelevant to me.
To me the only sane policy or action is to begin laying the groundwork for moving our populations and industry to higher ground, the ocean's coming calling, that's an inevitable fact.
Discussions about whether we caused or contributed to that are pointless, as are efforts to influence it in the future, as the author pointed out.
I fully expect that the pollies won't get around to that until the waters are lapping at their knees, so to speak. It'll quite possibly be as bad as any movie for the people who have to face it, and many will die.

Bazz,

I don’t think recycling will be of much use.

Only about 25% of electronics are recycled, and it may be too expensive to recycle more.

The same with most other things.

We really need a policy regards consumption and growth, and not just a climate change policy.

I’m rather like Joe Hockey (or I now understand he just wants to be called Joe, because he feels like everyone else).

Since I had my gastric band surgery and lost 20 kilos, I have tightened my belt, and I have thought a lot about consumption.

If we grow the population while consuming at current rates, things begin to run out, and then they become much more expensive.

So that is why I applaud attempts by Tony Abbot and Joe Hockey to aim for a zero growth economy, and to limit population growth and consumption.