According to Rajendra Pachauri the climate change argument does not really matter, it was just the first step in the UN crusade to protect the Earth from the growing population of human beings. One of the aims is to reduce population (er thats you and me folks) and another is to stop us from using the Earth's precious resources to produce all the useless gadgets that we love. Yet another aim is for humans to live in harmony with nature, sounds kind of sweet right? The intent is that we are all barred from large parts of the Earth's surface so that Nature can take its course without our interference.
I read a post on BH today (as usual I can not remember where doh!) stating that the UK government had already signed up to reducing the population of the UK. The normal response of a reasonable person would be to ridicule such a statement.
It may well be true. In 1992 the then UK government signed up to the UN Agenda 21 which is a very clever and pernicious document.
When the EU was first imagined a template was created which has proved incredibly successful.
First create a believable aspirational goal that nobody could fail to support.... bring european countries together so that never again will european nations fight each other.
Second never write down what your real aims are.
Third play the long game, softly softly catchee monkey. Achieve your aims in tiny steps that nobody could argue with.
By the time the population figures out what you are doing it will be too late. It very nearly IS too late; we are ruled by unelected beaurocrats in Brussels who are not responsible in anyway to any electorate.
How can this have happened? Because it was a damn good plan!
The UN have watched and learned, watched and learned and they are doing an even better job.
Our government signed up to the UN Agenda 21 twenty years ago, when did you first hear about Agenda 21, Have you heard about Agenda 21 and have you read it?
In keeping with the EU template Agenda 21 does not state the UN aims, what it does do is create an innocuous looking framework of aspirational objectives which, when combined give the UN the authority to achieve its goals.

Back to my original question; are we really damaging the planet? Are we over using irreplaceable resources?
All of the resources that we currently use are on or within the Earth's crust, this constitutes 1% of the volume of the Earth. Within that 1% we have proven reserves of oil and gas to last thousands of years and uranium and thorium enough to last tens of thousands of years. Is my question a joke or what?
What do scientists know about the earth's mantle, the outer core and inner core? I mean have they been there? Have they drilled down into it? We know diddly squat about our Earth and certainly not enough to talk about scarce resources.
Do we damage the Earth by digging our little holes in the crust to get our oil and gas?

What humans do is change the environment, that is the tiny bit that sits on top of the 1% of the earths volume, the crust. Oh my god!!!
Let us forget for one moment that the environment of the Earth has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years. Lets forget that most of the plants and animals that we have today are about as recent as we are.
However please let us remember that when the next big asteroid hits the earth, THEN you will discover what environmental damage REALLY is.
There is only one species on the planet that can find a way of preventing that, provided we continue to grow our economy and our technology.