At the present pace, greenhouse gas concentrations will be over 1000 parts per million by 2100. Based on current estimates of climate sensitivity, that could mean mean temperature changes in the vicinity of 10˚C, with much bigger changes towards the poles.

A 10˚C mean temperature change could quite plausibly threaten human civilization, if not humanity as a species. Fundamentally, civilization requires a food surplus. That may prove hard to maintain given extreme changes in ecosystems, weather patterns, oceanic acidity, etc.

The purpose of the ‘.’ (dot@sindark.com) designation is simply to link relevant materials. All that should ever be attributed to ‘.’ are quotes from and links to news stories, blog posts, reports, etc. Anyone is free to link such materials, but ‘.’ is not the appropriate attribution for a personal comment. See this post for further explanation.

Users wishing to be anonymous are welcome to use ‘anonymous,’ ‘anon,’ and similar variants. Note that different anonymous commenters can be distinguished using the identicons.

Climate change is important; most people get it. Let’s talk about solutions, and not use the type of fear-mongering language that the other guy who ‘won’ the 2000 election uses!

Establishing a prominent policy further out than the candidates are likely to go nonetheless provides them with an opportunity move in that direction and call it a ‘compromise.’

Maybe. But sidelining political strategy is likely to result in losing the election and thereby losing the opportunity to do more towards tackling climate change than if one had won with different rhetoric.

Yes, the next administration will make a big difference. That being said, the contribution Gore can make now is to help change the debate. In the grand scheme of things, his renewable plan is less radical than many of the other changes likely to be required.