It's worth noting that the states which have opted in represent approximately 105 million of the 296 million in America -- more than 35%. New Hampshire has recently trended very blue, but they tend to be very anti-regulatory. It'd be nice to see NH and Delaware join in, if only for the continuity. To have a stronger impact, maybe the next best chances are around the Great Lakes -- Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois, with a combined 23.4 million people.

As more and more states join, there'll be more and more pressure on US Senators and Reps to raise the standards nationally.

And for a lot of us who tend more toward the libertarian or conservative side, 'accepting the science' doesn't lead to the same conclusions. Check out the work going on with solar influences on climate, particularly the interaction between the solar wind, cosmic rays, and cloud formation. Fascinating stuff, and it seems to hang together very tightly. If true, then most of the worry about carbon dioxide is misplaced.

For me, what it means is that we should continue working on cleaner sources of energy because that is good in its own right, not because we're all gonna die if we don't. But it should be pursued gradually, and only as the technology allows it, and not through some massive, expensive 'New Apollo Project' or the like.

Fascinating stuff, and it seems to hang together very tightly

Not really. See the discussion on www.realclimate.org about why you should be skeptical. If you are predisposed to believe it, as you may appear to be, you should try to be even more skeptical, since you're at greater risk of fooling yourself.

Marcus:

However, while I do accept the science in broad terms, I still reject the panic-ridden Doom and Gloom that I see in some segments of both the science community and the press in general. Panicky people do not behave rationally. Methane has actually leveled off, and recently there was an observed cooling of the oceans, as published in Geophysical Research Letters last year. I still consider the economics of mitigation vs. adaptation as unsettled; and as the Wegman Report demonstrated, some segments of the climate change scientific community are rather inbred.

That said, it's extremely unlikely that the entire community shares those problems.

Auto manufacturing corporations seem eager to blow lots of cash fighting regulation of CO2 emissions, but in the end we need that regulation both from an economic and security standpoint and environmental standpoint. They should be plowing that money into things like auto-stop-start engine technology (like the Chevy Silverado "hybrid") that can be implemented across the board, not as an option but mandatory standard equipment. There's so much low hanging fruit in the North American automotive market and voter / consumer demand for regulation that it really doesn't make sense fighting it at every step.

Marcus - Note that I didn't say anything about solar luminosity, but solar wind. There's a writeup on some of the recent work (http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate) that has the peer-reviewed references you're asking about.

Paul's right to encourage skepticism on the whole matter, and I probably shouldn't have described it as hanging together 'very tightly'. I do think it's strong as a driver of long term climate change, and won't be at all surprised if we hear of a strong link to short term changes as well.

Besides, it makes a damn nice change from Al Gore and his roadshow of doom and destruction.

The commenter, Neil, above mentions Canada and says that right-wing politicians “have discovered the political value of adopting the (environmental) issue to take ground away from the left.” Unfortunately, the environmental record of some politicians in Canada is ineffectual and duplicitous. The Liberal government did sign the Kyoto agreement but it is now clear that they never intended to abide by the agreement. The quote below from the Edmonton Sun indicates that key members of the Liberal government viewed the agreement as a sham:

The previous Liberal government ratified the Kyoto Protocol knowing Canada wasn’t ready to take the tough measures needed to address climate change and would likely miss the deadlines for reducing emissions, says a top adviser to former prime minister Jean Chretien.

One of the most important renewable power projects in the United States today is Cape Wind. Proponents hope to build a large offshore wind farm located miles off the shore of Massachusetts one of the “bluest” states. The project is facing massive opposition spear-headed by Senator Kennedy one of the “bluest” politicians. It is unclear if it will ever be built. NIMBYism (not-in-my-back-yard) is a powerful force.

Two of the most important solar projects in the U.S. are supposed to be built in the deserts of Southern California by Stirling Energy Systems. The projects would use large parabolic dishes to concentrate sunlight and stirling engines to generate electricity. But there is major opposition to the transmission line required to connect the solar project to the energy grid. It is unclear if either the power line or the solar dish farm will ever be built in this “blue” state. More NIMBYism in California.

“Blue” state Vermont is starting to aggressively block wind farms. Wind is one of the most important forms of renewable energy. NIMBYism is in ascendance in Vermont.

This thread contains sanctimonious self-congratulatory nonsense about tissue-thin symbolic regulations that are easily reversible and filled with loop-holes. Recall that California reversed its zero-emissions mandate and deeply-damaged the electric-car market in the past. I hope that all people will work hard to push there states and countries in a positive direction and refrain from hypocritical vituperation.

And indeed, how much scientific and how much ideological is notion that climate and CO2 levels were stable and optimal

That word, 'optimal', sounds so clinical and detached. The reality is that climate change will harm some people, such as those living in areas that will be submerged by rising seas, or farming in areas that will likely experience permanent drying as Hadley cells shift. Even if a warmer world were, in some collectivist sense, 'better', it is unjust to those on whom the negative locals changes are forced.

The comment about stability would have more force if we weren't causing the atmosphere to approach a state it hasn't been in for tens of millions of years.

Paul,

If global warming even hits the median predictios, the impact of climate change will be felt not just by those whose crops dry up, or those in areas submerged by rising waters. Everyone will feel it in economic and social chaos long before New York, or even Miami is under water. We will be fighting wars for croplands and water, deciding who will live and who dies, who gets energy and who doesn't well before the ocean rises one foot. And everyone will be involved.

However, I am optimistic that technology and reason will surface sooner rather than later to head off some of these problems. Unfortunately, not all.

Kit P, why don't you check out the latest IPCC summary here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The world temperature, ie climate has changed measurably over the last century and will continue to change during this century. Sea levels have risen on average 3 mm a year over the last decade. That puts it at 30 cm by the end of this century IF it remains at this rate. Evidence suggests that this rate will probably increase. The consequences of this will be felt by many people around the world. Already low lying islands such as Tuvalu are being threatened.

What are your sources?

Mean Global Ocean levels are extremely difficult to determine due to periodical oscillations and high local variability (currents, atmospheric pressure, salinity, ocean temperature, wind, etc. influence regional ocean level on order of magnitude higher then general trend). Ocean level is rising for 20 000 years from the end of last Ice Age, with mean speed over last 7000 years of about 1.8 mm per year. 20 century is no different:

“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.”:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml

“In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890-1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10 +10 cm (or +5 +15 cm).”:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml

“Over the 51 year period, there is no significant difference in the rates of coastal and global averaged sea level rise, as found in climate model simulations of the 20th century. The best estimate of both global average and coastal sea level rise remains 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr−1, as found in earlier studies.”:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021391.shtml