I am sure there are some who claim that however I think many state things as mankind contributing to global warming and CO2 simply being one of several greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. CO2 however is put in the forefront since current science points to it as currently being the predominant greenhouse gas effecting the scheme of things.

That is an admirable goal for others to achieve as well. You have not only done more than what many others who only preach about  GW have done, but also have taken more steps than most of the peak oil and pollution preachers as well.

Well, if you really want to be gratified then visit this site, hahaha.  http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Well, I do believe man is contributing to global warming, and economic factors are a big reason (simply put, if the US adopted Kyoto, the pollution would likely become worse, as it would move to less efficient places)

What you're doing buying this overpriced green technology (it is overpriced) , is really doing humanity a great favor, as the demand will bring the cost down.  If I had your money, I'd hope to do the same thing, but don't know if I would.

This is why I think the best environmental policy is subsidizing green technologies to maximize net social benefit.   I prefer carrots instead of sticks (carbon tax) due to the effects a carbon tax would have on the poor (carbon taxes would be regressive like any other form of consumption tax)

The vast majority of changes to meet Kyoto Standards lie within the countries power generation infrastructure. That is not something that "moves to less efficient places". The next big area of change is in transportation. We already build foreign branded cars in the U.S. because the cost to transport new vehicles from say SE Asia for example exceeds the differences in labor costs. And as far as transportation of goods within the U.S. that is not something that goes offshore either. You cannot "simply put" simple answers to very complex problems or your answers will be quite simply incorrect.

Is it overpriced? It is expensive but new technology always is. The market should in theory bring the prices down over time and hopefully that is the case. Solar panels made in foreign countries are highly subsidized already so it is very difficult for U.S. manufacturers to compete. Subsidizing U.S. manufacturing would not be "environmental" policy it would be "economic" policy. We are competing with countries who not only subsidize their manufacturing of these types of products but they also put tariffs on our exports of such goods to their countries. And China is pinching down on its rare earth exports as well which are required for the manufacturing of these goods. (So for all you free market "enthusiasts" . the reality is free markets is an "ideal" which does not exist in the global economy we are living in.) This makes the solution much more complex than choosing between subsidizing or taxation. We have already had two solar panel manufacturers go bust that were being subsidized by the federal government. The rare earth problem needs to be addressed as well and that is not a simple matter.  The mining of rare earth elements is a VERY VERY dirty industry!

A single person effects the overall picture very little. What he has done is a great thing for himself and his family. Oil supplies are tight. A single major disruption of supply from a major supplier could cause a huge spike in prices and possibly rationing like we saw back in the 70's....or worse.

All he needs now is a few acres of farmland and some firearms and he will be the envy of the local militia as well!

I understand where you're coming from, I think we're just differing in definitions/perspectives.  I look at this from an economist viewpoint- since this was my paper for graduation about 3-4 years back (though I've never touched my degree since- ended up in another field entirely)

Kyoto was largely political.  It's main purpose was, like most GA UN initiatives, to transfer wealth from developed to developing countries.  Environmentalism was the excuse here, not the reason.  Companies are going to choose the option that is best for them, whether it's good for anyone else or not.  That's unregulated global capitalism for you.  We can't put the globalization genie back in the bottle, but we have to accept that there are side effects, and we have to adjust.   I suspect much of the growth in income inequality over the last 15-20 years is due to globalization and how the rich can benefit from price factor equalization more then the poor.  Ultimately, our future will be determined by how this question is answered. 

As for the overpriced: It is more expensive then fossil feuls.  That's what I was comparing it to, though your comments are accurate as well.  We could mine some rare earth materials in the US, but mining rare earths is expensive and devastating to the land, and an environmental issue in itself.

As for single people:  the folks who buy experimental technologies end up driving the cost down for the average consumer in a few years.  This has held true across many different inventions.  Clark Howard talks about this quite often.  Clean energy will be adopted by the masses when its cost is equivalent to the traditional means.

As for the farmland and firearms: Brad lives in Michigan . 

That is not it's main purpose. The countries who wrote it and many whose endorsement were necessary are mostly developed countries. It would have been bad for the US because we were faced with the largest burden to change our infrastructure at the time. This country faces a bigger transfer of wealth by not changing because we have to import so much oil. Now that peak conventional oil production has come and gone it is even more of a burden. US Oil companies are now making record profits. The Oil lobby propagated the skeptic propaganda which helped make that happen. Yes Kyoto is a political solution, but its main objective is not to transfer wealth. Countries who had already dealt with the problem simply because they had no or few oil reserves to start with or had smaller populations and economies were in a better position to sign and that it why they did. Solving their oil supply woes years ago inherently helped those countries deal with the GW dilemma that later surfaced. We did start changing our infrastructure years ago but the oil and coal lobbies and misinformation campaigns have slowed that down a bit. As far as transfer of wealth that all depends on who takes the lead in the design,manufacture, and implementation of the replacement sources of energy. So saying its main purpose is transfer of wealth is pure BS. Something that may or may not be a consequence of a solution is not the intended goal of a solution, it is a consequence. One of the alternative sources is natural gas for power generation and the US is loaded with it so we are not inherently put at some huge disadvantage in this situation in any case.

It will put itself back in a bottle. As transportation costs skyrocket economies will be forced to reestablish more localized markets.

It benefits the business owners and shareholders more than the working class would be a more adequate description. But that is only the case for industries that have globalized. Some industries cannot be globalized and require a local work force and those have suffered as well.

Solar panels and geothermal systems have been around for a long time. They are just not fully developed industries because oil used to be cheap. As far as industrial geothermal capacity the first geothermal electric plant went into use in 1921. The US already currently has more more generating capacity in use than any other country in the world. We also have enough projects currently in development to more than triple the current capacity. Home systems have not to this point been widely used in the US however the technology has been around for a long time.

As far as electric cars...They have an interesting history. They were actually first invented around the 1830's and mostly died out in the early 1900's From there you can do the reading if you like but I suspect you might even remember the EV1. I wouldn't actually call this experimental but moving forward sometimes means looking back.

Exactly and I hope he got a chuckle from it. We have those types where I'm at as well, in the middle of nowhere, however I don't think I own enough firearms yet to gain any envy.

Global climate change is real.  I'm very skeptical of the degree to which man-made CO2 contributes to it, however, given that no warming has occurred during the past decade, when the CO2-based AGW mechanism (if it were significant) would have produced a further rise in temperature.

I don't believe we know enough to adopt top-down ('global') measures to coerce changes that may well not have a payoff (and might even make things worse).  On the other hand, if I could get my hands on technology that would let me 'unhook' from the power grid at a reasonable cost, I'd go for it.

Unless you are outfitting an army, the ammo is the real problem, hahaha. Maybe there are some things we can all agree on and start this over. Let me know if I am wrong here: We should be able to agree that the data shows we have experienced a small global rise in temperature (last 100 years). Mankind is aggravating the GW situation through the abusive use of fossil fuels and whatever else (the ‘A’ parts). We have an adequate understanding of what we humans are doing to the planetary resources now and what we are doing to pollute the air and by how much. We seem to know a lot of gross happenings from the past but we lack the preciseness to get much deeper into it without gross speculations and outright guesses. Not sure there is much more that can be placed in this category at present though.

Food for thought: As smoothseas alluded to, the fossil fuel situation is well on its way to solve itself considering we are past ‘peak oil’ so it is going to remove itself from the equations more and more. Because of this fact alone, all the modeling and re-remodeling are not in sink as they predict a continued or increased use of a commodity that will depreciate itself throughout the period in question. Make all the gas guzzlers you want and sucker people into buying them, who cares? Lincoln(s) and Cadillac(s) don’t run any better than my Hyundai when they are out of gas too.

Daiwa, well said ...

Their modeling does to some degree account for it. Also many people still don't understand the difference between production and overall supplies and that difference is very important in the scheme of things.Tar sand conversion and offshore sources are not included as "conventional" sources so oil production overall could still increase. Tar sand conversion uses natural gas and is not very efficient. Deep water drilling has its problems as we have seen and is relatively expensive as well. We are past conventional peak oil production not necessarily overall peak oil production.That is hard to call. Pessimistic estimates say we are in the middle of it. Optimistic estimates say around 2020?  Hard to call because it depends on economic growth. It also depends on such things as how fast Iraq can ramp up their oil production since there is relatively substantial room for growth in production there. The problem is the more we are relying on oil the harder it becomes to achieve economic growth and capitalism is based on economic growth. If people think the recent contraction was painful wait until they experience what is yet to come when overall production hits the peak and goes further and further into decline.

What I look at is that the big picture actually includes at least 3 issues. Along with GW you have air and water pollution, and the the importing of  foreign oil sources. Relying on foreign sources means exporting wealth, and keeping those source flows "stable". That "stability" cost is huge. Our economic system relies on growth and the more we are relying on oil as overall oil production hits the ceiling and goes into decline the more the economy will contract. You have people trying to tell us that the market will fix the problem through the law of supply and demand. It doesn't because the market would dictate coal use for power generation since it is relatively cheap. 

Coal is also a fossil fuel and there is plenty of it so the situation as far as GW is concerned does not solve itself, Coal is even dirtier than oil from a pollution standpoint as well so overall the situation is not even close to solving itself.  If people want to argue some "Clean Coal" standpoint go elsewhere. Clean Coal and the Clean Coal Coalition is nothing more than advertising campaign (propaganda campaign). We dealt with the air pollution aspect of it years ago and what happens is the toxins that are taken out in the refining process end up in local drinking water supplies at a later date. In effect it simply restricts much of the pollution to more local regions. Sad for the miners and other folks who live in these mining areas because they rely on it for jobs and then it ends up ruining their drinking water supplies. That is a another issue in itself.

As far as modeling forecasts of the effects down the road there is plenty of room for skepticism in any case as there is with any type of forecasting. That is where most of the skepticism should be. The forecasts and models used will inevitably change over time. The models that are currently used for recommendations for current guidelines for example do not include concentrations of methane that will escape from the arctic region as permafrost melts. Methane is far worse than CO2 however currently we have problems putting a quantitative value on the extent to which this will occur.  

Overall when I look at this issue I put peak oil production at the forefront because that is deeply tied to the economy. Not addressing that issue adequately by itself restricts us in addressing the other issues and includes experiencing a very severe economic downturn or collapse.

It is difficult for those who are economically constrained from doing these things. They will be most effected by the problems at hand. Those who can afford moving forward need to lead the way. Particular in the area of electric cars. As the market for used electric cars grows this solution will be open to more people. Many may always be restricted to power grid use and that is why the power generation infrastructure is the biggest piece of the puzzle. People worry about the distance problem with electric cars however looking forward pulling into a "Gas station" to swap out a fuel cell is not out of the question. If the transition doesn't happen quickly enough food, clothing and shelter will consume so much more of many people's income that traveling far will not be an option for more and more people to start with.

It's like everything else - if a Ferrari only cost $25k, I'd buy one.  Instead, I own a Solstice.

Is it abusive? It definitely causes environmental and health problems. It does effect the GW equation. Fossil fuels are currently the engine of our economic system. We would not be where we are today without them. We might be in a somewhat similar situation to that which we faced before oil was discovered or similar to the various conditions which existed before certain uses of oil and petrochemicals were discovered. One can only speculate. We very likely live longer and the earth can sustain a larger world population with fossil fuel use then without it. History shows that. Maybe we can sustain a larger world population using other energy sources and maybe we can't, only time will tell. At some point the world will not be able a adapt to further population growth and populations will decline until a new balance is found. Overall that is the problem we face. No individual is going to make this choice.  No single solution will be used to to affect this. Societies will be forced to make their own decisions. We can choose to fight wars over natural resources to sustain or increase our living standards at the expense of others (including our children) or we can chose to live more conservative lifestyles at a lesser expense to others. We can choose to keep burning various fossil fuels if we are willing to accept the risks involved. In any case the risks vary for everyone. All I can say is people need to make up their own mind because the risks vary for everyone. Be cautious of what the ruling class tries to tell you. The ruling class is not forced to accept as much risk and have the means to insulate themselves from much of it. They do not have to send their kids off to war, they do not have to work in mining towns, they do not have to work in refineries, they are not constrained to live in polluted areas,and they do make decisions that force others to bear the risks, many having no problem lying and deceiving others about the risks that are involved.

Depends on one's situation. What you have upfront is certainly a restraint. Fuel Cell capacity available to suit ones needs is certainly another constraint. Then there are tax credits and if you generate a substantial amount of your own electricity then you are replacing a certain percentage of your fuel costs with a certain percentage of the cost of the investment and maintenance of your power generation system.

Here is an article from Scientific America that gives an example of fuel costs for electric vehicles.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=electric-cars-cost-per-charge

It can be a substantial difference depending on usage pattern, the vehicle efficiency, and local electric rates. If I factor in my electric rates which are relatively high compared with those of the article the break even point would be approximately a $1.50/gallon gasoline cost.

Smoothseas, since the USA reached peak oil in the seventies, we have done little besides go deeper and deeper in debt to pay for more and more oil to help keep our throwaway society eating high off the hog. These statistics we are seeing are not new as we are well aware of how much we have been polluting our environment for the past forty years. So yes, I would be comfortable with saying it was abusive use. Honestly, I don’t think the politicians started promoting AGW (or not) until there was some conundrum in the scientific community … then it was simply a matter of picking sides … whichever promised the most lucrative money. Don’t you find it strange that most worldwide issues and USA issues are split on political lines … wow, from this one might be inclined to think that the politicians (half anyway) know what they are talking about … hahaha … nope, just kidding. I think when you get to statistics as large as ‘world populations’ man again will find that he is not as superior as he thinks. Man in all his glory and power are veritable children compared to Nature and the Universe. We have been and will continue to denude the planet of its natural resources and beauty … so what … what in the world are we going to do about it besides talk? The PONR may be as little as fifty years away (out of my arse #) … nothing constructive will get done one way or the other because we are just too stupid to get our heads out of our ‘politics’ . People, the fate of the Earth has nothing to do with politics, get a life. If you cannot back up your views with much besides political talking points … then you don’t even have an opinion.       Disclaimer: “You” as used above does not denote ‘you’.

You are correct. We have "let the market take care of it", and since the politicians and ruling class are more interested in monetary gain than anything else the externalities have not been dealt with.

I don't find it strange at all. Maybe that is because I have always been sitting on the fence and never been able to jump to either side.  I simply look at what I have seen and experienced over the years and do what I can to make sense of it all.

Mother nature will always win in the end. It may look like she is loosing the battle and she will get hit hard but it is man that will end up loosing the most and doing most of the suffering. We never have been superior in any way. We will keep killing each other off like we always have. The only thing that ever changes is how we justify it.

So would I, but I chose to take the middle ground because I realize how correcting things will have an abusive effect on others. When you are born into a society whose economy is already hooked and reliant on something it is very difficult to pull off a soft landing, particularly when it is a relatively free society. Getting off fossil fuels is no simple matter. More people will lose jobs and more families will go hungry and as you can see not enough seem to care about those things. Many will simply write them off as stupid and lazy until they themselves are the ones going hungry. We are so deep in this that is hard to say what would be the least abusive thing to do because those already hurting will get hurt even more. The most abusive thing is doing nothing however we are doing something and have been for quite a while. I would argue that we have not done enough and also think we waited too long and now the changes will have even more severe consequences.

The people that are truly in power know exactly what is going on and they are mostly to blame. The politicians either go along for the ride or don't get the money from the ruling class to get into a position to do anything to start with. The masses only get to choose from a field that the ruling class throws in front of them, and if any of them step out of line they get squashed like a bug by the ruling class.