Your arguments are far too logical in the global ecology debate; since his holiness AlGore has deemed the debate is over, do not disagree with him.
Instead, use sensationalism and quasi religious fundamentalism for your one sided and biased arguments next time, and for goodness sake, do not think things through.
We humans are far too fixated on keeping the status quo. We are posessed by the desire to preserve our world as it is now -- because that's all we know and therefore want to keep it. But on a larger scale it is completely irrelevant, if most life on Earth dies or not. On the contrary: If 90 % of the world's animal life wouldn't have died 65 million years ago in a meteor crash, the world we know wouldn't even exist. Maybe man wouldn't even exist.
We probably owe our existence to most of all life on Earth dying some time ago.
It is completely useless and pointless to even try preserving it all, because sooner or later our world will change anyway: The buildings we build now -- all the houses, skycrapers, tunnels, bridges and monuments -- won't last for more than a couple of centuries at best anyway.
Cities will disappear, new ones will be built. Paris won't exist forever, neither will London or New York. Some day it will all be gone and something new will have replaced it. Our culture will change, too. And I don't mean Shakespeare or Beethoven or such things. No, in 2000 years or so nobody will know anymore, what "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" were. They won't know what "Windows" was or an "iPod". And if they find records of it, they'll look at it with puzzlement. They will find plastic bags from different supermarkets and will ask themselves, what strange religious cults we had.
If we build a bridge between Europe and Africa across the Strait of Gibraltar, it will be an amazing achievement - but not forever, because Africa ist still moving northward towards Europe a couple of centimeters a year and the Mediterranean will eventually be an inland sea again (it already used to be in Earth history).
All the money and power we invest in new things now, will eventually have been in vain. Why make an exception for life as it exists now? All the preserving we try now, will eventually have been in vain, too.
The alps are still growing, India will disappear underneath the Himalayas in time, everything is still in motion. Who are we to decide that we must save the Earth? All we can do, is trying to save ourselves.
If we accept, that no matter what we do, the Earth will change its shape and climate anyway, that no matter what we do, life will survive and evolution will develop new lifeforms over and over again and that we still have no more influence on our future, than the ancient Egypts had, then why don't we simply relax, lay back, try improving our living standards as much as possible and enjoy the good times, as long as they last?
Why are we so obsessed with keeping it all as it is, even though we perfectly know, that nothing will last forever? Who said we have been chosen to be the guardians of this world? Chosen by who? A God? Give me a break...
What comes up, must go down. Humanity has to learn to accept, that we merely exist in the blink of an eye in the lifespan of our solar system and that it is highly unlikely, that our offspring will someday look at our sun turning into a red giant from their spaceships, saying "If our ancestors in the 20th century could only see that"...
I think it's safe to say, that our existence on this planet won't be long enough to create any serious damage. Even if we strip this planet of all its natural resources, these resources will eventually recover, because nothing leaves this planet and the remains of organic life will turn into coal and oil again over the next couple of million years.
So why bother? The survival of this planet is not in our hands. We should concentrate on getting as comfortable as possible, while we're still inhabiting this world.