The debates about whether the Earth is warming and whether warming is advanced by human activity all miss the main points we should be considering.
The real questions have to do with how we spend our limited resources over the coming years. The alarmists refuse to recognize the fact that the impacts of even a dramatic reduction in human economic activity would have a negligible impact on the future climate.
Regardless of any international treaties, people in the developing world are entitled to have electricity and clean water, people and commodities will have to be moved from place to place, residences and businesses will have to be heated and cooled, and things will have to be manufactured. If everyone on Earth became an organic subsistence farmer tomorrow, the total reduction in "greenhouse gases" would be a percent or two -- hardly enough to make any difference.
Many of the initiatives that are being promoted now are little more than trendy scams, intended to extort money from government. Ethanol-as-fuel and carbon sequestration are absurdly expensive and provide inconsequential "benefits." Wind and solar power are ridiculously expensive and cannot replace any other source of electricity, as they must be backed up 100 percent by the grid.
It is disgraceful that our Congress is actively trying to hamstring our economy with absurd requirements to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, with complete disregard of the pointless economic catastrophe that would result.
I suggest we spend our money on initiatives that make practical sense rather than pushing alarmist boondoggles. We can start by advancing nuclear power, making higher-efficiency motors, using better insulation and working on eco-friendly construction practices.