And the cost of making this less-than-a-quarter-of-a-degree difference? 2-4% of GLOBAL GDP annually. Which is in the high hundreds of billions EACH YEAR in the first decade or two, rising to tens of trillions EACH YEAR after about 2030. With US GDP at $14 trilion, this starts out – on the low end of this range – at $280 billion PER YEAR, and at the high end at $560 billion PER YEAR for the US. Before you dismiss these as Exxon or some other corporate numbers, you should know that EVEN THE UN IPCC’S OWN ESTIMATES ARE WITHIN THIS RANGE. In other words, even the UN body whose reports have recommended Kyoto and its future progeny does not argue these costs.

If these costs would, say, avoid a future temperature increase of 5 or more degrees Celsius, we might be able to justify these expenses against the toll such warming might cause. But they won’t.

There are many ways that we could achieve much greater environmental improvement for much less cost. With 1-2 billion people on the planet still not having clean water, basic sanitation, enough food, and living in energy poverty, for the developed world to spend these enormous amounts on something that might make a quarter of a degree difference in a hundred years is morally bankrupt. This is the ultimate irony of the gaiarrhea spewed by Al Gore and the liberal supporters of CO2 emissions reduction.

Peer reviewed studies (hundreds) have shown that in a doubled environment of CO2, it is possible that the incremental crop yield increases ALONE could be enough to feed a quarter of the planet’s population. Geological records (hundreds) have proven that CO2 has been more than double the current level (about 385 parts per million) through the planet’s history. Ironically, it is exactly becausse of the productivity in biomass that occurred during these times that we have been able to derive the quality of life we have achieved in the western world on the back of the “fossil fuels” that some now seek to demonize.

Anthropogenic “global warming” is political science. The works of people like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Singer, Seitz, McKitrick, McIntyre, Soon, Baliunas, Michaels, Balling, Lomborg and hundreds of others make this more than clear.

It is well that “green” and “sustainability” are top of mind with many Americans – and many more in the EU. A greater focus on resource efficiency, energy efficiency, waste and other similar measurable, tangible environmental metrics will benefit us all. But trying to control the climate through CO2 emissions is dangerous, wasteful folly, and it’s not at all about “the environment”, “saving the planet”, or “saving humanity”.

If you want to get back multiples of each dollar invested in environmental improvement, then NEVER try and do it via CO2 emissions reduction/regulation. There isn’t a person on this planet of any credibility who can demonstrate such a cost/benefit equation that passes the red face test with intelligent people.

And if the American public doesn’t wake up to this sooon, you will see it hit your wallets in ways that no one can completely predict, for we are about to tax EVERY aspect of life as we know it.