New technologies can and surely will make a substantial difference, as you say Benjii - but then I don't understand your conclusion - that nothing can be done.
It seems to me that your conclusion is the flip side of the argument that something as vast as the planet couldn't possibly be affected by the behaviour of people.
As I've said before, I wish that was true. But where is the evidence?
Johann Hari takes a similar line in The Independent today. This bit is pretty telling:
"A study for the journal Science randomly sampled 928 published peer-reviewed scientific papers that used the words "climate change". It found that 100 per cent – every single one – agreed it is being fuelled by human activity. There is no debate among climate scientists. There are a few scientists who don't conduct research into the climate who disagree, but going to them to find out how global warming works is a bit like going to a chiropodist and asking her to look at your ears."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-i-wish-that-the-global-warming-deniers-were-right-1833728.html
Now you could go along St George's and Dune's view that science is a global Masonic-like cult that is trying to deceive us all to its own unstated ends. You have to admit, a global conspiracy of those evil-doing clever clogs makes a great deal of sense (in a parallel universe somewhere).
Or you could accept that, on the balance of probabilities, it's more likely than not, regrettably, that we have a bit of a problem.
As someone who really wants the science to be wrong, there's another problem with the deniers' argument. and that, quite simply, is how intellectually feeble they are, as St George has so clearly demonstrated (I'm not sure that was his intention - but if ever I want to ignominiously lose an argument, I know who to PM!) And usually - to make matters far worse - it seems that all of the noisiest deniers among the scientific community and among politicians are recipients of large wads of cash from the oil industry.
As for whether it matters to our generation, who knows? The five great rivers of Asia, including the Yangtze and the Ganges are fed by Himalayan glaciers that are fast disappearing. The knock-on effects of any disruption in those river systems will be global, immediate and catastrophic.
Better to do what we can.
But even on a selfish level, there's a really persuasive reason to act. Green technologies that cut energy use and develop renewable resources, in the end, cut costs - to all of us. The green energy business sector hasn't emerged out of money-down-the-drain altruism. It exists on a large and growing scale because there are huge rewards in it. Using less energy, or greener energy creates a virtuous circle.
Burning oil - and genuflecting before the waning might of the global oil industry - does not.
