WIRED magazine's latest issue might have the hammer which fits this nail.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/craven_pr.html

I assume this article is the one anon mentions.

I'd say I agree with Josh at about the 75% confidence limit here.

Yes, there is a direct link between developing new sources of energy and global warming, but that link only extends to a certain point. Specifically, it is possible, and even likely, that in the event we were forced to begin weaning ourselves off of oil, we may very well move to another technology that still gives off huge amounts of CO2 (or even H2O - i'll hit that in a second.)

If we were to actually hit the Hubbert's Peak for oil production, something would have to fill in the gap in terms of supplying energy. I see 3 major candidates that could do that over the next 50 years (but not beyond); using Coal and converting it into petroleum (Germany did this during WWII, so the technology is there), using breeder reactors to convert Uranium 238 into Plutonium, and finding some way to harvest another carbon resource, such as methane clatherates or the Eocene Green River oil shale.

All 3 of those may be possible ways to deal with the coming energy production crisis, but 2 of them still would contribute heavily to global climate change.

Therefore, it is not enough to simply say that our goal is energy independence and that also takes care of climate change, but in fact, there must be special focus on climate change and energy solutions that keep that issue in mind.

(If the one Foltz suggests above works, then that'd be quite impressive, although I sort of wonder if we're going to run up against the 2nd law of Thermodynamics somewhere in there)

The focus should be on developing energy sources because we should be concentrating on adapting to climate change, not spurious claims that we're responsible for it. It is quite likely that this warming is a natural trend so lets just focus on adapting to the change, which falls right in line with the healthy goal of living more in harmony with our environment, renewing it instead of plundering it.

It could easily be argued that cutting back food consumption would improve health in the United States enormously. In fact, this has come up lately...

Actually, Josh, treating poor health by cutting back food consumption isn't a bad idea.

As long as it's done smartly.

One reason that too many Americans are overweight (I'll put it mildly) is that they eat too much, at too many irregular intervals. That should be well known to nutritionists (it is known to me) but apparently it isn't. What is needed is that the person keep his (or her) blood sugar level on an even keel, which means nibbling, 4, 5, 6 or even 7 times a day. American meals, 2-3 times a day, is disastrous. And they should be walking, or biking, which is usually impossible even in American suburbs, much less the cities.