One of the hardest intellectual reconciliations I've had to confront has been that those that promote green ideas, normally have a red or bloody agenda. They seem to have a lot to say about things they don't understand, but fail to have the critical or investigative thinking to ask the right questions to learn. For all the rhetoric and fallacies perpetuated by lobbyists, environmentalists and eco-corporatists I seldom see any motivation apart from monetary or power from their actions. I'm not naive enough to think that many of them don’t have good intentions, that is evident in the young children and ignorant activists I've spoken to, but the industries they promote like, solar cells, wind energy conversion etc are far less economically satisfying and far more environmentally damaging than they seem to understand. But they are an imaginative way for industry to be subsidised and to funnel public money into private hands. Many don’t even understand that carbon dioxide is plant food, when I've attempted to explain this, I have been lied to, ignored and even once laughed at. (I must admit, I was laughing and able to rebut every fallacy they were repeating) One of the most contradictory commonalities is that many of those preaching about not cutting down trees, sit around smoking weed. I'm a proponent for weed legalization, but that's because of my libertarian views, the fact that it lowers motivation and cognitive speed and efficiency doesn't seem so bad when I live in an authoritarian state run by bureaucrats, I mean dumb and dumber was supposed to be a comedy, not a visual representative of human aspiration. Even the most fanatical environmentalists don’t really want to stop pollution. When you get them to think about it, they just want the right amount of pollution. When asked what amount that is? all I get is awkward silence. Even the most ignorant and malevolent greenies know we can’t afford to eliminate pollution altogether, exception being those so nihilistic they would like to end human kind altogether.... we call them psychopaths, they're easy to identify. Just look for the most vulnerable in society and the psycho's will be the one seeking to exploit them the most, yes, many will be in the public service or in legal services in my experience. We can't afford to eliminate all pollution, without abandoning the benefits of technology that we not only depend on, but that we as the human race have prospered by. So a better question in my opinion that should be asked is what level of pollution is acceptable? Note - Personally, I don't like activities in industries that are heavily water reliant, due to the risk of water contamination, the risk of water wastage and the current cost of the technology to filter, decontaminate and transport it. That's why I'm not currently in favour of Fracking. That's just my opinion and if those four items, cost, technology, decontamination and transport can be attended to in a way that meets the needs consistently of the community and the investors, i.e. the people, reducing the risks, then my I'll have to review my opinion. Having read the current report, I'm not convinced.