carbon rations.... what price progress?

Must has been said and much is being debated, even at the White House, on how to tackle the coming warming of the planet. According to a recent, the first of four coming reports, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the temperatures are due to increase an average of 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) over this century, and that "... the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming," co-lead author of the report, Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris (BBC News, February 2, 2007).

This is much appear to be certain. What is not is to how to cope and control the damage from the instatiable use of fossile energy. Part of the solution, according to the Kyoto platform, is for a usable and verifiable system of carbon exchange, with which, companies and countries that use more energy and hence produce more of the offending gases, can buy credits from other companies or countries that do not. A number of exchanges, paralleling the futures exchanges, have sprung up.

Here is the delimma: the US produces more than 1/2 of all CO2 gases, so it is fair to suggest that its numbers should be brought down. It is projected that China will become the most offending nation in the next two decades, especially if the US and other so-called developed countries, reduce their green-house gas emissions. Add to this volatile mix, the emergence of India, Russia, Brazil and the Middle East, and you have a recipe for disaster.

The developed world, however this is defined, should act, and now, to reduce the CO2 emission. What is morally reprehensible, is to ask the developing world to just as equally contribute to this reduction regime. Over the last one and a half century, it was the fossible fule, read oil, that acted as the engine of growth; more than ingenuity, guts, sweats, and tear. Yes, if it were not for the use of oil, in abundance, we would not be here today. To suggest, in the absence of a credible and functioning development strategy for growth, that the developing countries, should simply reduce emission, i. e. stop development, is shear nonsense.

We do NOT, as yet, know how to progress, without the use of fossile fuel. In case, you're wondering about the hydrogen economy, we must use fossile fuel, and lots of it, to extract the hydrogen that is needed to run the hydrogen economy! Add to the hypocrisy, is that some of the championing faces of the new climate debate, say for instance, the California governer, Mr. Schwarzenegger, drive hybrid, but yet gas-guzzling, SUVs.

To change the landscape of the cimate debate, how about starting by making the production of large SUVs illegal? Far-fetched?