...millions will die

I'm a sympathetic environmentalist, but I just can't easily take in claims of guarantees in an unknown future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2069395,00.html The rich world's policy on greenhouse gas now seems clear: millions will die

I'm glad for people like Monbiot to offer their grimest demands upon us, HOPING this is "the worst", knowing that's not even a promise. Okay we all know atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm preindustrial to about 400ppm now, and no sign it is flattening out at all, and predictions of what might happen if it ONLY tops out at 450, or shoots past 600 in the next century. Models predict global average temperature increases, but it looks like polar regions will get more of their share at least.

Even skeptics admit world temperate has increased in the last 15 years, but they say its just part of a normal cycle, and they might be right... temperatures might level out and even decrease over the next 15 years, for all we know, even if human induced global warming is happening. I accept there are natural cycles that mask our effects, so best to take care to not PROMISE any future as if it was fact. I mean discussion rises with the warm "cycle" and perhaps will fall when the cool cycle returns. If it is really a 50-100+ year problem we need to be careful to not overstate the evidence.

I'm even willing to accept that the climate models are not accurate predictors of future temperature increases with CO2. I'm not saying they're wrong, only that they can't be treated as "facts" but "best models so far". So all predictions are messy nonsense.

It seems foolish to me to say (1) 2C increase is "acceptable" (2) 450ppm CO2 will likely limit increase by 2C.

It's nice to try to "manage" the problem, but it seems over quantified AS IF we had data which we don't.

I'm glad to accept a hypthesis of future warming, but alone it is insufficient to motivate action. I mean ultimately which is worse (1) doubling of CO2, (2) Elimination and desertification of the Amazon rain forests (3) Peak oil and economic collapse? Or an other "problem" of our modern unsustainable consumption and destruction of the natural world and systems that support us?

I can't get very excited about GW in 100 years if I think economic collapse is imminent within 20 years.

I support reducing CO2 emissions purely on reducing our dependency upon unsustainable energy sources and unsustainable consumption. I see the virtue of conservation and defensive investments which can reduce our future consumption requirements.

Millions will die... SURE, we're all guilty. We're not doing enough. But DAMN it, we'll let those millions die when OUR BACKS are to the wall, as long as they are not us.

I just don't think you can guilt people who are merely trying to live their lives. We can all cut back and still not do enough. The only guarantee for our innocence is to kill ourselves now. Anything short of that means we're GUILTY. We should be punished. AND we shall. Guaranteed. We who shall live will someday know we could have done more, and didn't.

And it will be too late. And we'll muddle along through what we can salvage after that, millions lost or not.