So, yes, the representatives of 192 nations meeting for the climate change conference in Copenhagen have highly important matters to discuss, with huge implications for the pace of economic growth - and, if the green lobby is correct, for the future of the planet, too.
With so much at stake, therefore, it is vital the debate on global warming is examined from every angle, coolly and rationally.
For make no mistake: there is more than one side to this hugely complex argument - although anyone listening to the BBC or to any of our three main political parties might be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
Certainly, there is compelling evidence that average temperatures have been rising over recent years. But there are many respectable scientists who believe questions still remain about the causes.
Is this warming man-made or is it just part of a cycle that the Earth has been through many times before?
If it is man-made, then how quickly need the switch be made from carbon fuel to renewable energy - and what are the cheapest alternatives?
On the answers, the prosperity of billions depends. For one thing is certain: the cost of supplying 20 per cent of Britain's energy from renewable sources by 2020 will be enormous, holding back growth and inevitably diverting money from education, health and job-creating infrastructure.
So how depressing it is that the global warming issue has descended into ya-boo politics, with the environmentalists seeking to silence all dissent by demonising any sceptics.
How can it help anyone reach informed decisions, when Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband condemns all doubters as 'flat-Earthers', while refusing to countenance alternatives to littering our countryside with vastly expensive and inefficient wind-turbines?
How can it promote intelligent discussion, when the BBC presents it as an unchallengeable truth that we're heading for a man-made climatic catastrophe?
More disturbing still is the evidence of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, which suggests some climate scientists have been adjusting the facts to fit their theory about man-made global warming, instead of the other way around.
Perhaps most depressing of all, if the money spent on green energy had been poured into providing Britain with a credible nuclear programme, many problems we face could have been avoided.
Everyone who cares about our planet wants sustainable energy and a cut in emissions and pollution. But let the decisions on how we achieve that be taken on the basis of hard science and reasoned debate - not propaganda and zealotry.
On one thing, environmentalists and bemused sceptics must surely agree: anything that can be done to reduce pollution is a good thing - and since the Earth's fossil fuel resources are finite, it is essential that scientists and politicians should work together to develop cleaner, renewable forms of energy.