Eon will make you a deal.
In spite of your shaky (or even non-existent) evidence, your rigged "computer models", and your reflexive hatred of any disagreement with your POV, I will support you in your program to reduce AGW. IF you do the following;
1. Enforce the Kyoto Accord limits impartially. Including on the European countries such as France which signed on, and are now violating their CO2 emission limits with impunity.
2. Enforce the Kyoto limits on other CO2 generators, too. (That means not only the United States, but the People's Republic of China, as well.)
4. Since (whether you like it or not) at least 35%-45% of human-caused CO2 emissions comes from electric power generation, support replacing oil and coal-fired plants with environmentally benign generation systems which do not put CO2 into the atmosphere. Namely, hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants. (BTW, this means an end to the still-in-progress Clinton era plan to dismantle hydroelectric dams across the USA, to "make rivers wild again".)
5. If you want non-polluting vehicles, support the creation of infrastructure that will allow their economical use. That means developing safe handling methods for LH2 or SH2 (liquid or slushed hydrogen), improved methods of electrical power storage (IE, better battery technology), improved methods of transmitting power (think; non-cryogenic superconductors), and of course improved and non-polluting methods of electrical generation to allow nightly recharging of all the electric vehicles (see [4] above).
6. As part of (5), since so much of what we need to live has to move long distances from supplier to user, support a program of progressively phasing out conventionally-powered ocean and littoral transport vessels in favor of nuclear-powered ones. On land, replace diesel railway engines with electric or LH2/SH2 turbine-powered ones. In the air, replace kerosene-burning jet aircraft with LH2/SH2 fueled ones.
7. And while you're at it, accept a termination of all subsidies for; ethanol, solar power, wind power, and geothermal energy. If they are capable of supplying the energy needs of our economy, they should be able to stand on their own merits. If not, they should be superseded by something that can. (P.S.- I have long opposed price supports and financial aid from government to oil, gas, and coal producers; I am opposed to corporate welfare on principle, no matter who the recipient is.)
8. Finally, sign on to an agreement, stating that while environmental quality is indeed important, environmental imperatives may never be used to subject people to oppressive restrictions on their free exercise of economic choice. This means that, yes, we will agree on measures that will improve the emissions state of our society, but no, you may not use such measures as an excuse to suppress industries and/or technologies that, for whatever reason, you just don't happen to like. (That means, as long as SUVs don't add to the carbon budget above their alotted level, you can't make people "show a need" for such a vehicle before they are allowed to buy and drive one.) This measure is non-negotiable. (Because I honestly don't trust you that far.)
There's the deal, my "green" friends. If you are really interested in improving the lot of us all and "saving the planet", it's entirely reasonable, requiring nothing other than sensible and civil behavior on your part. As the old engineer's saying goes, "Just tell us what you want the gadget to do, and go away, and nobody will get hurt".
If, on the other hand, you reject this deal on the grounds that it is
(1) insufficiently restrictive of human impact on the ecosystem,
(2) Does not do enough to change society to a "sustainable" form,and/or
(3) allows too much individual choice and/or technological advancement to suit your idea of what the human future should look like, that will tell me that you aren't serious about solving the problem without hurting people.
Rather, it will tell me that in you neo-Luddite way, you are out to punish everyone else for not being as "enlightened" as you imagine yourselves to be, and to increase your personal and political power at everyone else's expense. Much like eveyry other group of self-styled "social reformers" throughout history.
Either way, we'll both know where we stand.
As I said, that's the deal.
Any takers?
eon
www.friendsofscience.org