Warming the Subject

Marc Kaufman of the Washington Post writes in Climate Experts Worry as 2006 Hottest Year on Record in U.S. that the National Climatic Data Center reports

the record-breaking warmth -- which caused daffodils and cherry trees to bloom throughout the East on New Year's Day -- was the result of both unusual regional weather patterns and the long-term effects of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned scientists said we have to realistically fight global warming in the next ten years if we want to pass on "a safe environment" for our children and grandchildren.

Experts have been pointing out that the last nine or ten years have all been among the twenty-five warmest years on record, which shows that evidence of global warming is not due to sporadic short term fluctuations in temperature.

Burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in greenhouse gases, and there's a broad scientific consensus that is producing climate change,

according to Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Kaufman concluded that,

Climate scientists report that there has not been this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past 650,000 years.

The Bush administration has rejected proposals to cap carbon dioxide emissions or impose carbon taxes as a way to limit global warming. Lawrimore said he believes the problem could and should be addressed by developing new technologies for powering vehicles and industry.

In a press release dated Tuesday, January 9, 2007, covering the Annual Climate Review Summary, on a positive spin,

NOAA scientists determined that the nation's residential energy demand was approximately 13.5 percent lower than what would have occurred under average climate conditions for the season.

The price of oil is coming down, too, though, so people won't be conserving on top of the decreased demand.

But it does seem like a form of cosmic equilibrium for global warming to decrease the need for people to burn fuel for heating.

Unfortunately, it won't be enough. BushCo is pressing the Iraqi parliament to allow US and British oil companies to profit from developing the Western Iraq oilfields. According to Fortson, Murray-Watson, and Webb of the Independent,

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil.

No one expects big players such as Exxon, BP and Shell to jump into the country until the security situation stabilises. They are jockeying to stake their claims now for exploitation later. "It's a mad rush to get something there," said James Paul, the executive director of Global Policy Forum, a New York watchdog group. "The companies are saying, 'Before any troops are withdrawn, we have to have these contracts.'"

All the money, resources, and lives we're spending to ensure American majors' access to Iraqi oil will be wasted if the atmosphere is too warm to allow its continued widespread use indefinitely.

It's more than likely that newer, cleaner technologies for energy production will supplant oil once the new technologies are developed and disseminated. They may already be more widespread and economically accessible now if it weren't for the US economy's addiction to oil.