If we want to develop "Green" technology for some time in the future I'm all for it, but govts shouldn't be involved other than to fund various research projects on a small scale.

I gotta agree with Vitaliy on this one.

The debate is far from over no matter what that flunky Al Gore or some guy from Berkeley, (A school with and agenda if ever there was one) says or anyone else with a green agenda.

"Man Made" and I quote Man Made, global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a few elites to seize the assets of those who have, filter it through their own pockets for a hefty profit, then pushed as fact and doled out to the useful idiots so they can keep their game going. It's basically a money laundering organization. Wall Street is all for it as well, as they can trade and carbon credits, creating money (Quite Literally) out of thin air . The first Green movement was started by the Nazis to help fund their cause, and I still find it amazing how many are still duped by it. It's become just another tool in the arsenal of Fascist Socialists everywhere.

If Man stopped existing tomorrow we could at best lower the temperature of the earth by 1/2 to 1 degree.

Get educated:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

@jokieone - It's clear that you didn't actually watch the presentation - or you didn't understand it.

@cosimo_bullo - Assuming everyone can achieve a 50% reduction in energy consumption [which is EXTREMELY difficult given there are very few efficiency gains to be had in the fields of agriculture and transport] all you're doing is delaying the exponential function by one doubling time. The exponential function still applies and you're still going to have to choose something from the right side of the list, or nature will do it for you [anyone who's seen the presentation will know to what I am referring]

For anyone else that doesn't have their nuclear blinkers permanently attached or is at least open to new information on the subject, I encourage you to watch this presentation from Bill Gates on the issue:

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

@GH13Timelapser - thanks for your thoughts, and the video is useful in general, but just to be clear, efficiency means we're actually using less energy per person (at least in the US) now than in decades past, so the exponential function doesn't really apply to energy use.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824092412.htm
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23017
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_energy_use

In regards to the Time article, Lovins has no idea:

"solar for when the wind doesn't blow, and vice versa. He also wants to focus on energy efficiency and micropower, shifting away from the old model of the massive central plant sending out electricity — i.e., your local nuke — in favor of smaller plants, even residence-scale ones, built close to population centers."

Wind/solar - what a joke. And what happens to Europe in the middle of winter when they have a quiet week during which there's little to no sunlight and little to no wind.

You think you can store a week worth of baseload electricity? Take every single battery in the world and you can satisfy the world's electricity requirements for less than 10 minutes.

What's the alternative? Ensure you have sufficient backup generation capacity that presumably goes completely unutilised when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. You think energy is expensive now and nuclear isn't financially viable?

As far as subsidies go, oil/gas and coal industries receive billions of their own in subsidies. No doubt nuclear did and does receive a disproportionate amount given it only produces 15% of our power - it made sense in the 50s/60s as countries needed nuclear infrastructure for weapons programs. What people don't understand is it makes even more sense now. Energy security [and fresh water] are going to be the points of conflict around the world this century. Oh and guess how you get around the fresh water problem when you have no alternatives? Desalination plants - which need copious amounts of energy. There's a good reason we're building them in Australia and while the public is largely opposed to them, I bet they wouldn't be if the Murray Darling basin ran dry and there was no water coming out of their taps.

The problem with the public perception of nuclear is the unbelievably skewed perception of risk associated with nuclear energy.

This is a bit pithy, but not far from the truth:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Even if climate change/global warming is a monumental scam of almost inconceivable proportions [it isn't] we still need to do something radical about our energy supply. I encourage everyone to watch this:

@cosimo_bullo
Yes, I mean environmentally toxic, not just poisonous to human beings. CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas generated as a waste product from the combustion of fossil fuels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Relative_CO2_emission_from_various_fuels

@brianluce

Good thing to understand about real theory is that it does not matter how many peoply believe that it is true.
Otherwise it becomes not theory, but religion.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/mf_qagates/all/1

Bill Gates: There’s certainly lots of room for increasing efficiency. But can we, by increasing efficiency, deal with our climate problem? The answer is basically no. The climate problem requires more than a 90 percent reduction in CO2 emitted, and no amount of efficiency improvement is going to address that. As we’re improving our efficiency, poor people are increasing their energy intensity. You’re never going to get the amount of CO2 emitted to go down unless you deal with the one magic metric, which is CO2 per kilowatt-hour.

Some are saying 80% of population reduction will instantly solve all energy crisis issues. Crazy mofos...

When the growth is malignant, as is the toxic waste of all types produced by short-sighted exploitation of natural resources, then yes, slowing down population and economic growth will buy some time. Where research has always been sorely lacking is in ecologically sustainable waste disposal. Find politically effective solutions to those problems, and economic growth will no longer be a treacherously double-edged sword.

Whether global warming is proven or not, we best take no chance and should invest in fusion power, which will be a clean and nearly free source of energy.
Maybe if we had invested as much money in the research of nuclear fusion as we did for fossil fuels or nuclear fission, we would have those reactors ready by now.
In any case it would help development everywhere.

Remember that Kepler and Galileo couldn't prove the movement of the heavens until Newton. Yet the Earth didn't stop turning.

@Vitaliy
Problem with such potential proof is what different theories exist.
Many state that CO2 fluctuation is normal for our earth, some state that it is of human origin but will cause colder climate
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Nope. You're misstating what science is saying on the subject. Again, there's near unanimity. I think it's a mistake to focus on the few contrarian and outliers. If you went to 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that your arm was broken, would you accept that?

edit: and note that the underlying principle that the climate is changing isn't even a discussion any more. The dicussion (if you can call it that) is about anthropogenic climate change -- at least among climate scientists. Fox News and right wing media outlets say otherwise of course.

>A few years ago many believed in nuclear plants.

Some still believe in to it. Including me. And, as I am aware, most professionals in large production companies.