"escalating CO2 levels are here to stay." Why? how do we know that? Can`t they be undulating? like temp`s...
It's all about 'trends'. Just like you have been basing your arguments against Al Gore and Global Warming. We didn't cause it and we aren't going to change it. What we are going to do is live with it. Everything that produces CO2 is on the up swing. Humans, ocean warming, more cows, ect. ect. Watch it rise and live with the results. Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores.
I don't know if the cows are mad or if Al Gore has a genius level scientific background after he retired from inventing the internet, but we live on a planet of limited resources and we thrive on energy provided to us by the sun either past, present or future. I think mad cow is an insignificant feedback means to control population growth. I think bird flu is closer to the unpleasant remedy to the longer term problem.
Our planet has feedback mechanisms to control its survival. These feedback loops are pretty slow. These mechanisms are not relevant to the survival of your children or even their children. It's part of a longer term balance. This balance doesn't favor individual life, survival or comfort, but rather survival of the earth's occupants.
You can burn oil, but that fuel came to us from our sun through our planet's past and was provided to our planet by the sun through time. Our days are numbered while consuming these old fuel stores. I would place the concern of total crisis and caos at 30 years or less before fighting over remaining resources breaks out over what what's left unless there is change. And of course there is no motivation for change today as long as there is gasoline for tomorrows trip in the SUV and electricty in our home.
You can look go Al Gore for remedy, but with the largest windmill you can put in front of Al, I don't think he can provide our future needs. This problem is larger than an unlimited supply of hot air or even some old and limited ideas. Recognizing there is a problem doesn't identify the causes or identify solutions. I think Al lost grap on this issue. His own energy consumption isn't modest by any measure and not related to his needs.
You can line the planet with solar panels. Even if you could afford them today as free, I don't think that would solve the longer term problem we have for our planet. I say this because when you collect and consume energy, it is not reflected back to space. Our planet's temperature is a blance between what is radiated to us from the sun, what is reflected back, and what is consumed from historical energy supplies. That is to say what energy came from energy captured in historal carbon sources through earth history. When you look at city temperatures on imaging, they are warmer just from energy absorbed in dark asphalt and structres. Even more energy is consumed moving heat out of building to space outside these buildings. Energy cause warming when it is absorbed, consumed or moved where its more convenient.
Energy collected outside of green spaces and consumed warms the planet. Solar energy isn't really green. It's more brown because it warms the planet, especially if it's ever implemented on a full scale. Then more legislation will pass bills to shift to "newer techology". Solar is another way of consuming energy on our planet. The root problem of warming on our planet is energy consumption on our planet. I don't think you obivate that concern by obtaining that energy from solar... though that can help some compared with burning older carbon fuel sources and creating CO2.
That brings us the more unpleasant concern, which is the planet earth has too many people in demand of dwindling resources. Looking forward, there are not enough resources, oil and energy to keep everyone on earth comfortable within their current or anticipated standard of living. Some on earth are already pretty comfortable and won't give that up. I guess I'm lucky enough to be among those who are more comfortable. Carter recommended turning the thermostat down. Yeah, that was popular for those who had thermostats and could afford choices. I remember all my neighbor's homes being cold for a about a week. Folks don't readily give up comforts they already enjoy.
Meanwhile, we export our standard of living elsewhere on the globe where folks have lesser expectations and are willing to work longer to reach personal goals. That warms their home and makes our own home colder. It's a longer term wealth exchange, but we see it already. There are fewer productive activities in our country while we exchange our past stored wealth or borrowed future wealth for goods made somewhere else by folks who will work cheaper.
Long term history solves this problem of resource shortages. Ice ages and warming, plagues, infection, disease and suffering close the "control loop" to bring everything into equilibrium. That reduces demand to meet the available supply of resources.
We have excess population on our planet earth, by any reasonable measure. If you cannot increase fixed or limited resources, that brings you to the next measures of rationing, control of expenditure, and reduction of living standards. Behind that is civil or war strife, death and destruction. Population reduction reduces demand. That always brings demand in line with supply.
The remedy for the crisis today is multi-faceted. We need to start by reducing energy demand and comfort. That's not a popular decision. Jimmey Carter recommended that once upon a time when he handed out sweaters in winter time and suggested turning down the thermostat only a few degrees. That suggestion was about as popular as a fart during Sunday mass. Somehow we need to reduce energy consumption by everyone on earth rather than leave excess consumption to just those wealthy enough to afford fuel.
The next remedy is to gather energy from the sun striking the earth. I think there are better answers to that energy collection than burning what is captured energy as corn or other food products, where agriculture consumes soil resources. I think burning food as fuel is a pretty stupid idea. When you can't feed everyone on earth, lets burn our food? Who was the rocket scientist who dreamed this up? It must have been a senator from a corn-growing state.
Next, evolve energy sources that are matched by yearly supply and demand. By that, I mean bring demand in line with the energy production and recovery that impinges on the earth on a shorter term basis. One cannot plan one's current and future consumption on the energy stored through time. That's a limited gift resource that won't be replaced. Energy demands of earthlings have to match the energy that our sun provides us on a daily basis.
If you wait until all historical fuel sources are spent, this is a hopeless battle to be fought over the last burnable twig using rocks and clubs.