While desirable, many of the items on Nathan's list are not necessarily related to CO2 emissions. Bear in mind that CO2 is NOT a pollutant in the usual sense of the word - an increase from 300ppm to 500ppm is absolutely undetectable in most normal situations and has no impact on livability of cities, sustainability, rainforests, clean air and water and so on.
Reducing CO2 emissions is likely to occur naturally in any case as oil becomes more costly to extract and alternatives are sought. US emissions have already fallen due to economic slowdown and gas.
The question really is not that there are consequences from fossil fuel emissions but the likely severity of these and the urgency around change. I'd observe that so far consequences are not at the level the IPCC has pegged (and indeed even the IPCC has become more circumspect about projections) and that we can afford to take a more considered and cost effective approach. Especially here in Australia where quite literally we could turn the country off tomorrow and make no difference.
