Brazilian rainforest deforestation + Chinese & Indian coal fired power plants = more CO2 in the air. America switching to electric vehicles & renewable energy = less CO2 in the air.

So, the solution is no one stops burning fossil fuels?

Politicians and enviros are going about the carbon problem all wrong. America has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, so eliminate the corporate tax (and all other taxes for that matter) until further notice for renewable energy companies...see what happens.

Every year more and more coal is dug out of the ground, more and more oil and gas is drilled. It never reduces. (Except for the recent short term decline in oil production) Nobody should be suprised there is more CO2.

All countries behave the same. Those that have large coal resources (e.g. US and Australia) mine more and ship it to India and China. The same countries pay just enough lip service to reneawable energy to appease the local population.

I believe we can only move forward by making an effort to reduce world production of carbon. Reducing demand for energy is like asking people to drink less water.

We will never halt AGW digging and burning more carbon every year. The richer producers should be the first ones to consider capping production rates. I don't wish to start a war, but it might even be an advantage for the West to cause an increase in China and India raw material costs.

Indonesia and other coal producers can only supply so much coal. I suspect they could be pusuaded to cap and control exports following a US and Australia lead. China can whistle as hard as they like.

We have let this problem fester for 2 decades. And the longer we wait, the harder the effort.

Fundamental problem is that in a democracy where 63% of people is not convinced we can or should do anything about it (and I reckon it is not any different in other countries around the globe), there will never be a clear mandate for the politicians to move. And we do depend on them to set things in motion. Unregulated capitalism will find the path of least resistance, being the path of lowest cost, being continuing burning of fossil fuels.

I guess we will spend another 2 decades doing nothing. A few more toothless conferences to keep up appearances. Then the signals will become undeniable and another 2 decades will pass until things start happening that really make a difference. Then it is 2050. Wasn't the idea to have an 80% reduction by 2050? By 2050 emissions will be higher than today.

The technologies that we read about on this site are slowly reducing the cost of alternative energy and reducing the use and negative effects fossil fuels.

These technologies are largely developed by people who want to profit from them. Those technologies which are not economical enough will fail, because no one can afford to implement them without risking bankruptcy. This applies to individuals, companies, governments, and entire countries.

The benefits of reducing fossil fuel use must outweigh the costs, otherwise it is doomed to failure. When individuals, companies, governments, and entire countries weigh the costs and benefits, they do not calculate only in terms of pure monetary currency. Quality of life, quality of Environment, and other things are also considered as profits and losses.

Economy and environment are inseparably connected. Economic policy must include sound environmental policy, and environmental policy must include sound economic policy. Otherwise, failure.

Technologies developed and used in the United States are adopted by developing countries, if they are affordable.

It does matter what the US does. If the US implements sound economical environmental technology and policy, then developing countries can afford to adopt it, thereby moderating their environmental impact.

If the US implements uneconomical environmental technologies and policies, then it benefits neither.

Good points Anne...

We will wait, until the rest of the world has reduced their GHG by 50% and 66+% of the voters request it, before we make a major move.

This may very be way after 2050.

With the U.S. on the sidelines, preoccupied with health care reform, the developed and undeveloped world appear to be at an impasse over the terms of a new climate treaty. As a consequence, perhaps it is time to start thinking about Plan B, where many countries remain outside a "Treaty of the Willing," until it is in their core economic interests to make firm, and transparent commitments to control greenhouse gas emissions.

In the meantime, the developed countries and their allies should begin exploring the creation of a new Sustainable/Low Carbon Free Trade Block, whereby countries that operate within the confines of a new Global treaty on Climate Change, and adopt other planet friendly policies agree to eliminate tariffs, quotas, and fossil fuel subsidies, etc. on their imports and exports while those outside the treaty, (presumable led by China and India), pay an annual carbon tax on their exports, levied by an internationally recognized body responsible for trade laws and global finance, (e.g., GATT, or the OECD). The Tax would be determined by the global market price for carbon offsets X the amount that each non-signatory country's emissions, as monitored by satellites, exceed what they would have emitted under the GHG emission treaty. The proceeds from the Carbon Tax should be invested in low carbon projects in developing countries, (e.g., forest and habitat preservation, the phase out of biomass burning, and carbon sequestration projects involving sustainable agriculture, and coal fired generation). The emission targets for developing countries (adjusted for population) would be phased in such that they reflect the emissions of more advanced countries after they make the planned 80% reductions in total emissions.

To the extent that emissions reductions globally are insufficient to avoid the worst case scenario on Climate Change, then a renewed effort and focus should be placed on mitigation of climate change impacts, and planetary engineering to slow the temperature increase, and buy time for a carrot and stick approach, and technological innovation to bear fruit. A canal from the Gulf of California to the Salton Sea should be constructed and be fully operational by the middle of the century to offset expected increases in sea level, and various planetary engineering schemes, (e.g., the injection of highly reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, and other solar shading schemes), should be carefully analyzed and if found safe and cost effective implemented to buy time for new technologies and international agreements to take hold.

Other low cost mitigation measures should be pursued immediately, including the painting of urban roofs and streets white, utilizing military or heavily armed environmental police forces to protect wild habitats and virgin forest, a global crack down on black carbon and super greenhouse gas emissions including trade embargoes or even military action if non-compliant facilities continue operations, the development of new crops varieties that utilize less water and fertilizer, and deployment of sustainable terrestrial farming and advanced aquaculture to replace collapsing fish stocks.

Using less imported oil is a goal independent of global warming. $400 billion per year going out of the country for oil has an effect on our trade imbalance and the value of the dollar. People can say China should do more, but let us lead by example, there are SO many benefits for doing the right things that it gives plenty of room for people to brag later.