What the hell does preserving rainforests have to do with cutting co2 emissions?
Fossil fuels have sustained humans for a hundred years. Where I live there is enough gas ad coal for at least another hundred years. I'd call that sustainable.
Green jobs? Another throw away line that doesn't mean anything
Renewables. I have nothing against them (except the horrible wind turbines) but at the moment they cannot give enough energy. So switching to them as fast as they want is impossible and what's more is they know it. If you tried to get India - for example to stop burning coal, millions would die.
Clean water and air....Again, what the hell does it have to do with co2??
Healthy children? Jeezuz!, whoever wrote this ran out of ideas pretty fast!
Even the word hoax is inaccurate. There are a relatively small number of ''climate scientists'' (which are actually just computer programmers sitting in comfortable offices entering all kinds of unreliable and unproven data into their models and making projections which have nothing to do with reality. They have come to believe that the Earth's true climate is represented by these models and the real outside world can be ignored. It's all there on the screen!). Some of these modellers, Michael Mann being the most prominent, have intentionally altered or disregarded data to make the co2 theory fit with rising temps. (look up hiding the decline) The UN have latched onto this false modelled data and now use it to demand certain political outcomes. Meanwhile the layperson hears the one point of view through the mainstream media and obviously they believe it. Why not?!, I did too for a while. So the word hoax is an unfortunate word used by some skeptics and now used by the warmists to align any alternative viewpoint with conservative fossil fuel companies and the politicians who back them.
The reality is much more complicated.