On the contrary, prosperity is part of the solution here – the richest countries can afford to build cleaner cars and energy plants.

dmac, I didn’t make myself very clear here. I generally agree with you that the natural market probably holds a better solution than any government bureaucrat. My (poorly made) point was that the most vociferous enviornmentalists often treat prosperity as the chief culprit, and that if we all were required by government fiat to live in smaller houses, drive smaller cars, stay cooped up in cities, etc., all our problems would be solved. And in a democracy, this constant “eat your spinach” moralistic hectoring isn’t likely to help your cause much (just as, despite all the hue and cry about the religious right, they’ve been spectacularly unsuccessful in lecturing Americans back into some straitlaced world).

Inconvenient Truths Indeed

“….An Inconvenient Truth” is billed as the scariest movie you’ll ever see. It may well be, but that’s in part because it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in “An Inconvenient Truth…..”

Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F

Actually, the climate is most likely returning to it’s normal temperature. The cause of rising temperatures is not, it turns out, particulates in the atmosphere, but the lack of them.

It seems that those nasty old chimneys and factories spewing tons of particulates into the air reflected a greater portion of the sun’s radiation, thereby cooling the planet… much like that predicted for a “nuclear winter”. When areas like California imposed strict emissions guidelines, it caused a significant reduction in atmospheric particulates, and an accompanying rise in temperature.

Seems clean air is warm air. Perhaps a better analogy is Gore air is Hot air…

Respects,

Gwedd

Poor countries will be the primary cause of excessive emissions in the coming years, so the sooner they become prosperous, the less they will eventually contribute to the overall problem.

Actually, I think it is a topic that is worth pursuing, although it bugs me when I see its most ardent proponents treating it as a partisan problem. It seems to me that there’s not much support from any politician for pursuing a message that, at its core, says that prosperity is hurting us. Because it’s the resource-draining nature of prosperity that ultimately is the culprit behind global warming.