I think part of the 'disconnect' is that a lot of people--I'd put myself loosely in this category--think there is global warming at some level, but we also know that "experts" on both sides are lying through their teeth to push whatever political solution they're fond of. It's a bit frustrating to really feel that one has no idea what represents anything like an unbiased source of information.
Clearly, there is warming, and clearly, human activity is causing (at least most) of it. But the proposed solutions seem to be floating abstractions. A "solution" that trims the global economy by 6% to achieve a 1/10th of 1% improvement in amount of warming over the next 40 years seems ridiculous: where will the funding for research and mitigation come from? A "solution" that assumes that the largest polluters don't need to comply (China, USA) is pointless. A "solution" that arbitrarily decides that people who see a chance to escape the poverty that has dogged their families for generations (India, Brazil, Indonesia) must be denied that chance to offset the sins of those who have wealth, is grossly unfair. And so on.
I am not sure what the best solutions to global warming are, but raising awareness--which is happening--and taxing carbon (which is not, sadly) are clearly big players. More research on what, for example, sulfur compounds do is also needed. Roads to cleaner energy that are actually cleaner when you count in things like fertilizer, transportation, etc. are needed. "Clean energy" initiatives that are not just boondoggles to favor constituencies (Solyndra, corn-based ethanol, etc) are needed.
I think the American people are smart enough to understand fairly complex issues, IF they are in fact presented as complex issues and with consistent and well-planned explanations. Trying to fight a war of soundbites is a losing approach.
I tend to favor approaches like tradable carbon credits because they encourage companies to find the biggest reduction "bang" for their buck, thus pushing the known solutions onto the known sources of pollution the fastest. I also favor a five-year phased-in carbon tax on fuels, both for transportation AND power generation: with a predictable timeline on when and how much the cost will rise, users and companies have a chance and motivation to invest in cleaner solutions. Given the current economic straits the world is in, starting that phase-in may have to be scheduled for say 2014, but as long as the tax will occur (and the markets believe that) it will start showing results incrementally.
While we're at it, how about the disconnect that lets people fish species to the brink of extinction, even though that means their own livelihood is destroyed? And that's a problem with an impact measured in years, not decades...
Just my thoughts, MK
.
