Let's say the USA cuts their amount by 50% - we go from 15% of CO2 to 7.5% CO2. Which means (with current technology) that our energy expenses go up and that the market value of the fuel we currently use is reduced - and therefore very likely purchased and used by less affluent countries that haven't cut their CO2 production - our energy is more expensive and net CO2 doesn't really change. Plus, even if it was a net reduction of 7.5%, depending on which predictions you believe, that will little effect on the timeline of when global temps, ice melt, etc. become really significant - likely less than a generation.

I'm not a "Burn, Burn, Burn" proponent or a denier that man isn't affecting the global environment. Where you can make sensible steps to conserve, you should. But IMHO we are close, if not already past the point where we can reverse this just by placing restrictions on use of fossil fuels, particularly when it is impossible to place them on everyone.

Man has to solve this with new technology. It doesn't make any sense to burden the segment of the world's population most likely to do that with energy restrictions that might delay the solution while the cheaper fuel will be burned by other segments of society anyway.

Mankind will be extinct one day. Either through rapture, or like the bacteria in the petri dish that doubles daily - once a problem is really significant, it will be too late to do anything about it and it will happen rapidly ....unless we change the experiment or get into another petri dish....










fuel is we cut that