We have to hedge our bets about Global Warming

I join the majority of the scientific community in believing, that we should hedge our bets agianst Man Made Global Warming, or Climate Change (“CC”). In the last two centuries scientists have been able to objectively measure the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is one of the principal components causing the increase in the earth’s temperature.
CC should not be made into a political issue, with so called Moderates and Liberals affirming CC, and Conservatives, Fossil Fuel Producers, and Traditionalists denying the evidence of CC. Unfortunately the focus on dealing with the real issues are being detoured by issues such as Wall Street profiteers ambitions to profit off of “Cap and Trade”, and Al Gore and his band of venture capitalists wanting to push the CC agenda to profit from renewable energy sources. Money has always been made from opportunities to solve social, environmental, medical, transportation, and other delivery systems. Our capitalistic system can provide positive goods and services for our society that are beneficial to all stakeholders.
There are CC pundits who will pull out a few aberrations in the CC argument, and then attempt to use that “Straw Man” to discredit the entire hypothesis. The fact is that in the last 100 years average temperatures have risen 1.8 degrees F, pre-industrial carbon levels have risen from 280 parts per million, to more than 390 PPM, and is rising at 3 PPM/year. Really dangerous levels of carbon occur at around 450PPM, or about the year 2030 +/-. The rise in temperature is directly related to atmospheric carbon levels.
Deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels are the two greatest contributors to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Fossil fuel producers of oil and coal have a present economic interest in discouraging people’s acceptance of CC. Fossil fuel stakeholders usually try to use the big fear words, “Loss of Jobs”, but they could care less about jobs, their interests are purely corporate profits. Fortunately natural gas is plentiful, less polluting, and as a result coal fired generation plants are being converted to natural gas. The bad news is that this coal mined in the US is being exported China, where its negative effect will touch the entire world.
The oceans play a major role in the absorption of one third of all the carbon dioxide. Oceans also move heat around the world to balance out climates. Hurricanes will continue to increase as temperatures increase, causing land devastation and more disruption to climate patterns. Increased carbon dioxide in the oceans has created more acidity, which intern has damaged coral beds and other sea life that sustain our very dwindling edible fish population.
“Cap and Trade” is a somewhat misunderstood delivery system for reducing carbon emissions. The free market, with every person acting in their own rational self-interest, can’t by itself solve the global climate change problem. We need new economics that encourages carbon reduction and that makes it economically untenable for companies to pollute. Those that pollute will lose profits. For example coal generating power plants who convert to natural gas, or other less polluting sources would be able to sell a reasonable amount of credits to other coal companies. This disparity would put less polluting companies at an economic advantage. The idea here is to put a ceiling on how much each industry sector can emit, and gradually reduce that carbon cap over time. Those who run “clean Industries” could add to their bottom line by selling to higher polluters who would still have a ceiling on their allowable maximum emissions. If some people make money by brokering these trades, so be it. Brokers now make money from the sales of other financial instruments such as medical insurance, casualty insurance, real estate, and other tangible and intangible assets. When I hear some capitalists using the argument against “Cap and Trade” as just another Wall Street scam, I just shake my head and say, “Its all about who’s ox is getting gored”. These fossil fuel producers would be there in a “New York Minute” to support “Cap and Trade” if some of the brokerage commissions dropped in their pockets.
Linguistic author George Lakoff said, “The salesmen of death -- the oil and coal companies -- are profiting hugely from our payouts to them via subsidies and high prices. And with the money ordinary citizens are giving to them in subsidies, they are corrupting the political process, influencing political leaders not to deal with global warming -- our greatest threat. We are dependent on them for energy, to a large extent because they have politically blocked the development of alternatives for decades.”
There are four possible scenarios available that I see relating to our confrontation or dismissal of remediating CC as follows:
(1) We assume there is no CC and we do nothing: This would be the perfect scenario, no insurance premiums paid and no future perils. The down side is that we would not be as motivated to wean ourselves off of imported oil; our air would continue to be polluted from dwindling fossil fuels.

(2) We accept that there is CC and we act now: This would be a “win-Win” situation. Effectively we would be reducing our dependence on oil imports (38% of all our imports), breathing cleaner air, reducing the need to invade other countries for their oil, staving off weather disasters of increased hurricanes, rising sea levels, and more deserts. Putting a proactive policy in place will not happen overnight, we need to plan ahead and start implementing this plan immediately.

(3) We act now but find out there is no CC: We would have spent large amounts of money for renewable energy. Effectively we would be reducing our dependence on oil imports (38% of all our imports), breathing cleaner air, reducing the need to invade other countries for their oil.

(4) We assume there is CC and do nothing: If we do nothing and we are wrong, the devastation to our planet would be disastrous. Rising sea levels due to the melting of the polar ice caps would flood many of our coastal cities, causing death, injury, major economic losses, and untold deaths. Our continued use of fossil fuels would increase oil costs, continue to cause health damaging pollution, and make us more vulnerable due to energy dependence and a continued need to invade other countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly Iran, Russia, and Venezuela for control of oil assets. Our food supply would be at risk due to changes in water availability and fertile land.

It appears to me that the best choice and insurance policy against world disaster is choice #2. We are used to paying insurance premiums for medical, fire, and life insurance. We spend $4,000/yr. for every man, women, and child for defense, so what’s the big deal about getting us off of oil and coal, unless one owns a lot of stock in these fossil fuel producing companies? Let’s cut our excessive military spending, eliminate corporate and agricultural subsidies, and as a result we will not have to raise taxes to get us on an energy independent and renewable diet. The pundits of Man Made Global warming do not have a very good and sustainable argument for doing nothing and keeping our heads in the sand about the above critical climate and energy issue.