Good point. In fact it seems that government actions have had some success in cleaning up our environment in the past. Automobile emissions in this country are way down from 40 years ago. Rivers and other bodies of water are generally cleaner too. China and India? another story altogether.

If in fact, CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on climate, perhaps more laws could reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. However, I think that this lifestyle we are living is entirely dependent on burning things and I don't think that RE can ever possibly step up and fulfill the energy appetite that 6.6 billion souls have grown accustomed to. I don't even think that RE, if fully implemented could supply a quarter of the energy we use today. If you want to make steel, you gotta burn some coal. I like steel.

Here's what I'm trying to say: If, in fact CO2 emissions are leading to a disastrous future for humankind, I don't think there's any way to reduce them enough, on a worldwide scale to make any difference in the long run.  

Ever since I watched that Zeitgeist movie someone posted in here, I have been more and more of the opinion of that guy whose comment I posted in the last thread. I ask myself these questions:

Why is global warming stated as fact in the media so often? I listen to NPR on a regular basis and have heard three or four stories a week for months now. Media is supposed to tell both sides of the story, yet I almost never hear a contrary viewpoint on the news. Why is that? There certainly is a contrary viewpoint. Look at this thread. look at the comments on that site you posted.

So here's my argument in a nutshell. If CO2 is going to ruin the earth, there are too many people burning too much stuff to ever get it under control, no matter what governments do. I think smart, wealthy people know this fact and are hoping to use this big scare of global warming to increase their wealth and influence. Smart, wealthy people own the media and are trying to convince me to give up something that I have, so that they can have more. I could never put my finger on it until I read the comment I posted, but I now truly believe this has EVERYTHING to do with peak oil, and nothing to do with saving the planet from climate change.

I like the fact that you are an optimist. This world needs more optimists. I feel bad being the pessimist all the time but from this side of the keyboard, I think I'm just being a realist, but maybe I'm just paranoid too. Maybe, John Lennon was right all along, and global warming and conspiracy theories don't have nearly as much to do with our future as does love

Volvo Farmer

Governments have never been responsible. As far as I know they have never done anything promoting business other than war.

Politicians are quick to blame and slow to accept responsibility. One only has to glance at the 'oil situation' and see they run in a reactive rather than a pro-active mode. They get their life blood from subjecting those who are under their influence to vote for them.

One quick little observation, the government created 'environmental protection'. The blame is on the 'oil companies' for not building refineries. The 'environmental protection' agencies required the addition of MTBE to the gasoline supplies but accept no blame for it getting into the ground water. The problem was known for years before any action was taken.

It seems to me the folks promoting this warming idea are those that are profiting from the regulations and grants attached. I could be right. They may be a bunch of scoundrels. And, all political parties in the US are defiantly guilty.

I suspect any solutions will come from private industry, not government meddling.