The chart show nothing of the kind. Using same logic used by Undertoad, the chart shows what happens when too many people now commute alone by 2 ton car from Pennsylvannia to New York City every day. But we need those people to drive two hours each direction at over 100 km/hr to keep the world from starving!

Since we could not save the Columbia, then we also should not have tried to save it. I hate such defeatist reasoning. It defines the classic anti-American - person who fears to innovate - who fears to address problems - whose solution to problems is to always give up because the problem certainly cannot be solved or even minimized.

Instead we should spend even bigger buck on an anti-ballistic missile system to save us from a threat that does not exist. Clearly its better to spend massive funds on something that is flawed and no money on technologies we know work.

That 'woe is me so don't try to fix it' reasoning is offered by UT in response to the chart. That was also same reasoning offered as an excuse when engineers desperately tried to save seven shuttle astronauts.

CO2 levels don't have to rise this quckly. We know the technologies exist for more productivity using less energy and pollution. Thank the Japanese and Germans for rescuing so many technologies that sat stifled in America. Of course they now a have all those jobs.

BTW, have we noticed all the heavy blue and black smoke now pouring from coal power plants in the region. Same reasoning that says global warming cannot be solved is also why all those scrubbers are no longer being used. We cannot clean the air enough so we should not clean it at all - George Jr reasoning.

Again, same reasoning used by UT to ignore realities of global warming. We can't solve it today so we should never try. Its called being an anti-American - a quitter - an ostrich. Global warming exists. Many solutions to global warming means greater productivity - except to quitters.

That is NOT what he said or even implied.
No. I work 200 yards from one of the biggest coal plants in the area and haven't seen any increase in visible particulates.
But, we don't have conclusive evidence as to why or even that it's bad.

I think newer technologies can provide significant relief without too much hardship. For example, the Energy Star program for appliances, including computers and periperhals. claims the following

Results are already adding up. Last year alone, Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, saved enough energy to power 15 million homes and avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 14 million cars - all while saving $7 billion.
from EnergyStar.gov

Most of us didn't even notice the changes made. Changes to simple technologies, like two-stroke engines, can add up to massive environmental changes. Fuel cells are on the horizon, and electric-gas hybrids are already available.

The environment is the ultimate 'tragedy of the commons'. Even a Libertarian 'leave everyone alone until they affect their neighbor argument' does not deal well with pollution.

If I have a 55 gallon drum of toxic material on my property, I have the potential to harm my neighbor. Since I haven't harmed my neighbor yet, in a strict 'wait until it happens' sense, some people might argue to leave me alone.

However, considering the difficulty in reversing or repairing the damage, requesting a bond would be impractical, because cleaning up a spill after it leaves the drum would cost more than I could probably afford.

So we are left with environmental damage in the name of progress without accurately assessing the cost. Texas has some of the worst air pollution in the US. Some people feel that toughening requirements would hurt the economy, without considering the economic cost of smog alerts, lung diseases, lost revenue from people staying indoors, etc.

Some communities ignore enivironmental issues until the company folds or leaves town and they are left with a burning underground coal mine or dead mountain, polluted waterway, etc.

Essentially, clean air, water, and soil are a common property. Our current policy of giving away these items for short term prosperity is essentially in line with the current adminstration's economic policy, a matter of us writing checks that our future generation will have to cover.