B-b-b-but I thought that carbon usage and economic growth go hand-in-hand? You mean you can grow the economy and reduce carbon emissions at the same time? Wow, this will be news to the corporate apologist crowd.

To the rest of us, this isn't surprising at all.

The problem isn't so much with the lack of available natural gas, but the supply pipelines. I have read that the US government is at least planning to do something about expanding the natural gas pipeline network. Hurricane Katrina made it clear how vulnerable our natural gas supply is.

If we don't use the natural gas, it is simply burnt off at the oil wells.

Also, the current rise in gasoline prices has little to do with the price of crude oil, but much to do with oil refinery capacity. Why is the federal government not strongly encouraging the oil companies to build more refineries with all the huge profits they are making? Are the oil companies deliberately restricting supply?

These artifically inflated natural gas and gasoline prices are possibly as harmful to the US economy as a carbon tax would be. If we could fix these problems, then we perhaps we could afford a carbon tax.

Meanwhile in related news, a team of international scientists reported on Monday that worldwide carbon dioxide levels have taken a sudden and alarming jump since the year 2000. The scientists found that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are increasing at three times the rate experienced in the 1990s.

If everyone who believed in AGW cut their energy use by 80%, think of the fantastic impact that would have on reducing CO2 emissions, and making them feel good about themselves!

I do not understand what is stopping them. Why do they have to wait for the government to pass a law - if they believe so fervently in their cause?

If I believed I was destroying my children's future, I would definitely do something about it.

B-b-b-but I thought that carbon usage and economic growth go hand-in-hand? You mean you can grow the economy and reduce carbon emissions at the same time? Wow, this will be news to the corporate apologist crowd.

REPLY: (Oh I saw this coming the nano-second I saw the headline, so here goes!)....B-b-b-but the emissions are down and the earth is still warming!!!...THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!....WE HAVE TO DO MORE MORE MORE....It's still warming!!!...It still has a fever!!!!..We need more regulations!!!!....We need to change our lifestyles!!!!....Better do it now cauz it's for the children!!!!!..Gotcha, Marko!.....

"The scientists found that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are increasing at three times the rate experienced in the 1990s."

This must be due to a sudden and previously unknown tripling in the world's population, or perhaps people suddenly started driving their cars three times as much.

Or even more likely it is due to all the hot air being spewed by Chicken Little's flying around the world to concerts, to warn us of imminent destruction if other people don't change their behavior.

Sorry, Oiz, but even though the United States' emissions fell, the world's emissions have increased substantially.

But hey, at least you've acknowledged that the world is getting warmer. Sometimes it takes baby steps to climb beyond denial.

Mark-

"even though the United States' emissions fell, the world's emissions have increased substantially"

This would certainly seem to counter the usual left-wing mantra that the US is inherently evil and to blame for all of the world's problems.

Perhaps prosperity is the key to a clean environment, rather than Al Gore inspired draconian measures that would send the entire world into poverty?

"This would certainly seem to counter the usual left-wing mantra that the US is inherently evil and to blame for all of the world's problems."

I don't know, Patrick, because I'm not left-wing, nor do I get my talking points from this afternoon's Sean Hannity radio show, either.

"Perhaps prosperity is the key to a clean environment, rather than Al Gore inspired draconian measures that would send the entire world into poverty?"

No, but it's still hilarious to hear alarmists like you predict The Great Global Depression if we take steps to mitigate AGW.

Hi Guys,

Look CO2 is good for plants and is a essential component for life to exist. It is not pollution and plants don't care if it comes from your lungs or a power plant. By the way man only produces about 2% to 3% of the total CO2 in the world and of that CO2 is responsible for only 2% of the green house gases. Water vapor makes up 95% to 97% of the green house gases and nature produces 99.9% of the water vapor. So man is responsible for 2-3% of2% of the warming by green house gases. Wow thats like .003 degrees C. Better move to Alaska.

Mark,

A simple way to reduce your carbon footprint by Al Gore's required 80% is to take these steps-

1. Only go to work one day a week.
2. Only take a vacation once every five years
3. Keep your house at 55 degrees in the winter, and 85 degrees in the summer.
4. Reduce your meat consumption by 80%
5. etc...

There is no need to wait for government action. You can take these steps on your own.

If you believe that Gore's legislated Orwellian nightmare will somehow make it easier for you, think again.....

I have a better idea, Patrick:

1. Live closer to work. Instead of choosing to live 100 miles away, then complaining about your commute & gas prices and expecting us to care.
2. Instead of driving your gargantuan SUV to take your shirts to the dry cleaners three blocks down the street -- trying walking there.
3. Open the windows. 80 degrees is not that hot.
4. Reduce your meat consumption by 80% -- actually, if most Americans reduced their meat consumption by 80%, they'd be eating -- *gasp* -- a normal allowance of meat. Nope, can't have that.

The only 'Orwellian nightmare' is in your imagination, Patrick. Most of us laugh at the suggestion.

Mark,

I ride my bicycle to work, live in a small weather sealed condo and eat very little meat.

The point I was making is that reducing CO2 output by 80% would require massive changes, is not something which is going to fly, and any attempts to legislate it would lead to that party being quickly removed from power.

Pretty funny stuff eh - the idea of trying radically alter hundreds of millions of people's lifestyles through legislation. Glad you find it amusing, and I certainly hope the Democrats try it before the next election.

Patrick,

What you fail to consider is that Gore and Edwards are advocating an 80% reduction BY 2050.

Not by tomorrow.

If we reduced our carbon footprint 80% by tomorrow, then yes, we have to do what you're saying. But nobody is advocating this.

Reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 is an attainable goal, as the economy won't be fossil-fuel based anymore.

Why isn't Bush's goal of reducing gas consumption by 20% in 10 years an 'Orwellian nightmare," Patrick?

Mark: But hey, at least you've acknowledged that the world is getting warmer. Sometimes it takes baby steps to climb beyond denial.

Ignorance rules it seems. Since you like points, I'll try it that way.

1. The world is emerging from the LIA and is warming up in general, with hot and cold cycles lasting a decade or more.
2. The climate is currently in a "hot" cycle, similar to other hot cycles recorded for more than a century and found in secondary evidence going back into prehistory.
3. No anthropogenic cause has been given for all previous "hot" cycles, only this one. Well, to be fair, some theories have been proposed, but they refute the "science" underpinning the current AGW position so that gets them tossed.
4. The only other cycle that has been given an anthropogenic cause was the last "cold" cycle, which certain people and groups attempted to push as the coming Ice Age using the extremely similar tactics to the AGW crowd.
5. This is not a shock when you consider these people and groups are the same crowd.

Patiently waiting until you learn anything but green talking points.

Reducing meat consumption by 80% is a "normal allowance"? By who's standards? Man has been eating huge quantities of meat since we learned to hunt and I have no plans to give any of it up. You go right ahead and do what you think is right for you, but don't try and push that on the rest of us.

Patrick Henry thinks that prosperity is the key to a clean environment. Actually this is a non-sequitur in the U.S. because of regulations. However, prosperity allows people to buy land and if they are properous enough allows them to buy large tracts of buildable land which are then sold to make way for more point sources of pollution. That's how it works with a growing population.

Sorry, Oiz, but even though the United States' emissions fell, the world's emissions have increased substantially.

But hey, at least you've acknowledged that the world is getting warmer. Sometimes it takes baby steps to climb beyond denial

REPLY: Ah, I see, so our emissions fall, so we have to do more because the rest of the world still hasn't lived up to their promises. I get it! Sometimes it takes baby steps to see hypocrisy to, Marko! But your blinders will be permanently welded to your eyes. That's different, eh? Gotcha again!

Oh boy, I am gonna have big fun with this one!

1. Live closer to work. Instead of choosing to live 100 miles away, then complaining about your commute & gas prices and expecting us to care.

REPLY: Some of us like to drive! And I am sincerly interested in your 401k (that is if you have a job). I'd be interested to know if there are any oil stocks in there. If so, you really have reason to gripe, don't ya?....;-D....

2. Instead of driving your gargantuan SUV to take your shirts to the dry cleaners three blocks down the street -- trying walking there.

REPLY: Dry Cleaners is on the other side of town, and even so, I can't walk, I have a broken leg!

3. 80 degrees is not that hot.

REPLY: Oh really? You mean we still have 80 degrees temperatures out there? According to you panic mongers the warming is so rapid, that 80 degress will be a thing of the past in a few years if we don't take action now!

4. Reduce your meat consumption by 80% -- actually, if most Americans reduced their meat consumption by 80%, they'd be eating -- *gasp* -- a normal allowance of meat. Nope, can't have that.

REPLY: Yep, you are soooo right! Had my ribs and chicken and beef this weekend Mark! It was yum yum yummy! Tell me, did you spend your Memorial Day weekend eating tofu and curd??? Something tells me you did not! By the way, what does meat consuption have to do with any of this? Now I've heard it all. My eating meat is going to destroy the planet!....hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

"What you fail to consider is that Gore and Edwards are advocating an 80% reduction BY 2050."

So as the population doubles by 2050, they have the arrogance to legislate that our grandchildren will have to live on 10% of our current per capita CO2 emissions.

Given that about more than 10% of greenhouse gases are generated biologically by humans, and also more than 10% are generated by livestock used to feed humans, that goal will require that everyone gives up their cars and houses and only breathes and eats a couple of days a week.

And you vote for these people?

Mark,

There are more folks,taking time to re-evaluate their position on global warming and realizing that there should not be a panic-driven solution. When everyone finally see's that there may be a cooling in the distance, you may then be one of the deniers of this cooling and we will understand.

I see you as a bright individual and can't imagine you allowing yourself to be so consumed by the brainwashing of an obvious money-making, grant-grabbing, research-funding scheme. Take off the green blinders and dig into where all your green heros are getting their operating capital from. I just hope you don't jump off a bridge over it.

I know this will have irked you to no end and expect a tongue lashing, but again, I will understand your reasons.

"So as the population doubles by 2050, they have the arrogance to legislate that our grandchildren will have to live on 10% of our current per capita CO2 emissions."

The point of Gore's proposed 2050 reductions goal is that hopefully by then new technology and cleaner energy solutions that produce fewer greenhouse gaseswill be available . What I think is arrogant is thinking you know better than panels of scientists and environmental specialists.

And as far as meat goes. Animal products have a significant part to play in global warming and most environmental destruction. Not only is animal waste a significant contributor to warming gases (through methane primarily), but the extreme distances meat travels and the large amount of rainforest destruction that has taken place to raise these animals produces huge amounts of CO2. No, I am not trying to steal your cheesburgers. But maybe next weekend you could try to eat just some ribs and a salad. Vegetables can also really help your waistline.

And please stop calling environmentalism and global warming a "scheme". I am not calling for extreme action, but for once perhaps someone could consider the positives of moderate movement toward sustainable energy, agriculture, and lifestyles. Think outside your box! Stop feeling so attacked! We all want a better world and to live happily, go on vacation and eat delicious things. When did green become such an ugly color?