Artful Dodger:

In reply to this:

> If the "carbon footprint" is a bit crazy (it's not scientific and it's nonsense.
> Carbon dioxide is plant food. The environmentalists treat it like it's a polution.
> And Co2 levels are DOWN. Temps are up. Where's the connection?

Usually when we talk of global warming people tend to get the wrong idea. It is a gradual warming that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Here is a graph that shows what the anomaly is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

From the 1920s to the present the average atmospheric temperature in the world has gone up about 1 degree centigrade. It does not sound like much, just 1 degree. However, it is a lot if we consider that we are heating up an entire planet. I recommend the full Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The problem with global warming is not that it will kill everything on Earth. Carbon dioxide and methane are not mustard gas or some toxic substance.

Estimates of the effect of global warming say that we could see a further increase of 1.1 to 6.4 degrees centigrade over the next 100 years.

What is the effect of that? It is not like everything will get cooked or roasted. The problem is that as the temperature goes up, the rate of evaporation of water goes up. In many areas of the world the soil is not able to retain moisture the way it used to and those areas are slowly becoming deserts.

As global warming makes its slow advance, more areas will become arid and agriculture will suffer. The Earth is already having a hard time providing everyone with food. Advances in plant breeding and genetic engineering have made the growing of food easier, but global warming threatens to destroy about 30% of the arable land of the world. That means 30% less food, and by the end of this century the population of the world could be 3 times what it is now. 30% less food and 3 times the number of people is not a joke.

There is a lot of skepticism about this and some scientists doubt it is actually happening and they think the warming mighht be part of a much greater climate cycle. However, the statistical data do point to emmissions of carbond dioxide, methane and other gases as the most likely causes of the warming.

There is also a lot of debate about how to reduce those emmissions. Industrialized countries are willing to reduce emmissions, if populous countries like China and India reduce their emmissions too. Emerging economies like China, india and Brazil are unhappy with the caps because it means that they will have to limit their economic growth.

I am a chemist and I think that global warming is the product of human industrial activity, the use of cars and other means of transport, and the overuse of electricity. However, I also think that we have to be realistic and see that people need those things. The problem with this is that it is a politically charged issue because politicians cannot agree on how to proceed.

Those that want the environment protected at any cost want tough caps imposed. Those that have been lobbyed by oil and energy companies will oppose any action. Squeezed in between are the people of the world who will some day see their grandchildren suffer if something is not done. As always, it is poor people who will pay the price for the agricultural catastrophe that could happen if something is not done.

I think ultimately the only solution will be to teach people to waste less energy. We all love to leave the lights on, run electrical appliances 24 hours a day, drive two block to buy a soda, etc. I am sure that if we all accounted for how we use energy, we would find that 50% of the energy we consume is wasted.

We also need to stimulate companies and universities thaht do research into ways to reduce the amount of gases we emit. That means that the goverment has to take our hard-earned tax dollars and put them to work properly. That will always be a difficult thing, because politicians are influenced by special interests, and taxpayers might be skeptical of how the money is being spent.