We do know these, we even know more that these, we just don’t care enough and it is much ‘cheaper’ to not do anything about it.

So keep on bitching until you change the collective consciousness.

To the people responding with links and ideas, that’s exactly what I meant. I said I knew they must be out there, but I hadn’t heard about them, and certainly I haven’t seen any from this site. Not to trash on Phil or this blog, which I read and enjoy daily, but I hardly ever see any sort of positive or inventive articles on many of the problems discussed so regularly. It is very frustrating to see that the scientific community, or perhaps it would be better to place blame on the people reporting on the scientific community, never seem to report on what can be done to solve the issues. I look forward to reading up on the links you guys provided. Again, I love Phil and the blog, I didn’t like how aggressive he was in the end of his article, but he’s certainly entitled to his opinion on his blog and I still enjoy him for it. I do not dispute that global warming is true, nor do I dispute these big ideas exist, I just didn’t know what they were…until now. Thank you!

Well, I have no idea what media access you have but it seems to me that you have been looking in the wrong places.

Potential solutions to AGW – whether these are economic, political or technological – are reported in New Scientist on a regular basis.

So, I dispute your contention that such solutions are not being investigated or explored, and I dispute your contention that these investigations are not being reported.

As to the tone of Phil’s article that you dislike – well, the USA is the only country of which I am aware in which a significant portion of the population rejects the reality of AGW. For quite a large proportion of the last 20 years, the USA, as well as being the world’s largest economy, has been the largest per capita emitter of GHGs (I do not know if it still is – I saw a report not too long ago that Australia was now the largest per capita emitter), so getting the USA on board with any coordinated international effort to deal with AGW is critical. So, the anti-AGW crowd needs to be shown to be arguing with nothing more than hot air.

I sadly agree with your assessment of the situation. You are among the contributors to this forum that I most highly respect and admire. Keep up the good work!

I also agree that, everything considered, the government is not really doing us any favors by using subsidies to artificially keep fossil fuel prices down, if this discourages the development of renewable resources and maximizing energy efficiency and resource conservation.

IIUC, peak oil has either already happened or very soon will. I hope it is not too late to make a significant impact on slowing global warming.

The question regarding peak oil is whether it will happen soon enough to have much of an impact on global warming.

The way of the future is to make renewable energy, like: concentrated solar, wind, wave, and geothermal, more viable by making their costs per KWhr competitive with the prices we now pay for coal, oil, and gas.

Agreed! However, it is also true that if we continue our profligate use of coal, oil and gas, their increasing scarcity will force their cost to rapidly escalate to the point that renewable energy will become very cost competitive with fossil fuels–no matter what we do or don’t do.