Nothing is going to change, get used to it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place. The problem is that the Republicans seem to be in denial about science because of the whole fact that it will hurt their precious oil and coal industries.

And destroy millions of livelihoods, and wreck the economy.

     Millions? Probably billions. Supplying even a fraction of the world's energy needs through renewable resources would be ludicrously expensive.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place.

Care to provide a cite for your utopian fantasy? 

Yes, in fact.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/100-renewable-energy-by-2050-is-possible-heres-how-we-can-do-it.html

     Too bad they don't actually talk about the costs of installation in their estimate. I estimated that installing enough solar panels to supply the world's power usage in solar energy would cost about $200 trillion. Well, better hope the other sources are cheaper.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why do people always focus on how many people it will put out of work and how expensive it will be when we can just as easily focus on how many more technicians, laborers, designers and researchers we will need to hire. Maybe the economy needs some sort of massive Keynesian jolt that it used to get through the mass mobilization caused by war. I mean, even if there was no Global Warming and even if we could believe every word of what those rich smelly guys in cowboy hats and Carnharts say about what they do to the world, it is still a great idea to think infrastructure.

     If the costs make the project in question impossible, then I think they need to be addressed. Ponying up three times the GDP of the entire world would probably take more than a few bake sales, after all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why do people always focus on how many people it will put out of work and how expensive it will be when we can just as easily focus on how many more technicians, laborers, designers and researchers we will need to hire. Maybe the economy needs some sort of massive Keynesian jolt that it used to get through the mass mobilization caused by war. I mean, even if there was no Global Warming and even if we could believe every word of what those rich smelly guys in cowboy hats and Carnharts say about what they do to the world, it is still a great idea to think infrastructure.

     If the costs make the project in question impossible, then I think they need to be addressed. Ponying up three times the GDP of the entire world would probably take more than a few bake sales, after all.

Then again, why do we focus on just the costs as if no benefits would come before the entire cost is paid. Perhaps an actuarial assesment needs to be made based on the risks, costs and benefits instead of just throwing out numbers and saying "its impossible" or "its too hard". Maybe it is and there is a reasonable estimation that we can make to make it reasonably certain that there is nothing we can do about greenhouse gases but it would appear that simply dismissing any analysis based on what we can already tell would just be bad policy. ...and of course, if we get to make the decision you are talking about, we are then at the question of what can we still do if suffering significant to radical climate change is unavoidable. Is there a role for the state or is dealing with this situation a personal matter?

     Well, I saw the costs issue as an allusion to my post. Certainly, this issue could be tackled by continuing to phase in renewable resources as sources of energy. Then there is a question of how quickly we can make transitions while maintaining a feasible budget and how much effect our efforts will have. The important thing is not getting derailed by overambition and wishful thinking.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, developing countries are adding lots of new coal plants, which are adding greatly to the rate of global warming. While political corruption plays a role, there is also the issue that their energy needs are growing rapidly and coal is a cheap way to meet them. I imagine that addressing corruption that leads to subsidizing fossil fuels would probably help, but you also need to help countries like China and India produce energy in a less polluting fashion in order to curb warming in the long run.