There is way too much effort spent arguing over whether the climate is warming and/or whether human factors are the dominant reasons.
Instead, we should be asking.
1. What will the effects be?
Guess what: nobody knows! It's all wild guesses from people who really don't have the expertise. You end up with some guy in a lab running computer models about hurricanes giving press conferences where he claims that half of china will die in a famine due to global warming. (hyperbole alert but you get the point). He's as unqualified to talk about future food production and the global market for grains as most of us.
2. Even assuming human carbon production is the main culprit, can we even realistically reduce carbon emissions to a degree that it will matter?
If I understand correctly, even something as drastic and economically damaging as the kyoto protocols (which none of the adherents have been able to meet anyway) would have only dented the GROWTH of emissions rates. the point is that we may have unleashed an uncontrollable beast here and arguing over whether we should replace our old lightbulbs or outlaw SUVs is probably fruitless. Short of draconian oppressive measures enforced worldwide, it is probably unrealistic to think that we can solve the problem of carbon emissions with policy. The long-term solution for reducing human carbon emissions is probably going to be a mediation technique, not from reduction.
If cheap carbon really is running out and on the verge of becoming super-expensive, then new alternatives will become more profitable and THAT will reduce emissions. For example:
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004517.html
However if carbon remains cheap, it's NOT going away. It's not realistic to think it will. Policy advocates should focus on mediation research/spending as opposed to gas taxes and other measures aimed at discouraging consumption.
natedogg