First understand this, I am a green supporter. I recycle, etc. but do live in a rural area that requires uses of high carbon footprint items to get by. I understand the issue from both a moral side and scientific side. In other words I'm with you! However, (there's always a 'but' somewhere right? ;P) I would like to see if anyone else sees this issue the same way I do.

I am not alive to save the planet. If I can do something to allow 1 human 1 more second of life in the future I am all for it. The discussion of environmentalism/global environmental changes needs to be couched in terms of saving and perpetuating humanity and civilization rather than 'saving the planet'.

Honestly, one way of looking at the human race is as an evolutionary answer to return the broken carbon cycle back into prehistoric balance (obviously the use of fossil fuels is returning Carbon to the levels in which it was found in the atmosphere before it was locked away into the ground as coal/oil). Unfortuantely, we are doing this at a rate that appears to be detrimental to humanities survival as well as any number of species in the world by changing micro and macro environments quickly. This however, is not the end of the world/planet. The rocks and mountains will still be here, surrounded by a much different environment, with different life, ecologies, etc.

The fact that there is something that we can do to slow this change, thus perpetuating our own species (and others that live in the same ecological range that we do) is the moral dilemma before us, and should be discussed in that manner. Seeing that Mr. Gore is starting to address this issue in this manner with church groups is truly inspirational.