I spent over an hour crafting a point by point response to the above article, but lost it in the stroke of a key.

Instead, let me summarize:

Mr Ward sees the clear, present and immediate existencial danger of global warming.

On the other hand, he is trying to instigate a cultural and social revolution to impliment a solution.

In my opinion, while educating the public, and honing advocacy, the real battle is to convince and motivate a small number of policymakers at the top.

Unfortunately, these elites are unusually motivated by self-interest and power, rather than universal good.

Therefore, any global warming solution will have to be low cost and easily scalable, rather than costly, complicated and uncertain.

I predict no social and cultural low carbon revolution will occur on the short time scale necessary to avoid runaway global warming and abrupt climate change.

Futhermore, I predict that fossil fuel interests have enough clout to veto any high cost or uncertain solution.

As I've said before: the only solution is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.  I suggest the low cost and easily scalable solution of bio-sequestration (using genetic engineer).  Perhaps seeding a GMO in the sea.

I would like to remind Mr Ward that every day that continues business-as-usual is another nail in humanity's coffin.  The last Koyoto treaty exempted developing countries, and the targets were missed by many signatories.  What do you think will happen if the next Koyoto treaty has more stringent targets?

The clock is ticking...