Oh man, I found this incredibly funny!
Will, I think we'd agree that moving carbon from the geosphere to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels for 150 or so years is likely going to have some effect.
The question then might be just how much of an effect?
It could be much less than IPCC projections, or even more?
And what can/should be done about it?
On this, I highly doubt that much will be done regardless of the answer to the first question.
From posts and links earlier in the thread, it seemed good science found a change of about 1.5 degrees centigrade, while the UN claimed a +3 C increase. My own opinion is that we have indeed affected our environment with our pollution, just not (yet) to the degree the UN would like us to believe. I'm sure they would be just smitten to have us commoners running around crying chicken little and willingly turning over our industry to the worlds utopian political elite while lowering our standard of living to that of a serf, while the elites relish in their own Al Gore sized carbon footprints.
In reality, yes, what we do absolutely does affect the world around us, and it would be irresponsible of us to screw the place up for future generations. Just how to not do that, while maintaining a comfortable lifestyle is up for much debate.
IMO, having the onerous force of gov't take control of the rest of our lives is not the answer. Leaving it up to "the free market" hasn't worked either as there seems to be no shortage of people who have no problem screwing up the future of others for a little (or a lot of) short term gain and material wealth.
Not really sure what the solution might be, other than for individuals to be conscious of the resources they consume in exchange for the lifestyle they live.
I'm in no way in favor of gov't setting limits on prosperity or success. I do think it'd be nice for people to realize on their own that nobody really needs a 6000 sq.ft. house with industrial level energy consumption to live a happy life. We don't really need to be surrounded by plastic to be content. Yet, there are plenty of people for whom any amount of material wealth is never "enough" for them.
Perhaps education (not based on hyped up UN ideas, but rather truth), and a healthy dose of respect for mother earth and the people who will come after us that need her in good shape is a place to start?
Good points that no matter how much pollution reduction we do here won't make a hill of beans when there is China and other industrial countries that make 1970's Los Angeles look like God's Country in comparison.
Today, so-called "green" energies bring very little net energy compared to the fuel burned to create them (considering everything from the mining of the ore, or fossils fuels they are made from on to manufacture, lifespan, and disposal). They may actually do more harm than good. (Neodymium windmill and electric car batteries, toxic electric car motors, solar panels made from fossil fuels, etc.) That doesn't mean we should give up on these technologies. We should pursue them and make them better, but we shouldn't force them on people when they are nowhere near as productive as they need to be to supply the amount of energy we use.
A lot of it is being screwed up by political and monied interests. Corn fuel (ethanol) for example. Takes up nearly as much energy to produce as what you get out of it, when places like Brasil have done it with sugarcane with a much better return. Big Agribusiness stands in the way of that. Hemp fuels could help a lot, but again, polyester, nylon, and petroleum don't want to see that happen, and unfortunately, politicians come pretty cheap these days, and voters want easy to digest soundbytes that already fit their preconcieved notions rather than actually thinking, or realize that things actually worth having don't come via the instant gratification model.
