I believe the boys are on to something, although I'm not 100% with them.  What may be debated now is whether or not we're at the tipping point.  It certainly appears that we are close and should start the plan for the many terrible effects of global warming.  My town is a coastal one at 10' elevation, and if worse case predictions are accurate, will be underwater by mid century. The city planners should do a full risk analysis and then, begin planning for either evacuation or building levies, or something in between. And, this kind of assessment and planning should be carried out by all levels of government.

Having said that, we must also do an "all hands on deck" effort to mitigate this change in climate.  This means 1) energy conservation to reduce the demand and 2) alternative energy sources to address the supply.  

I don't know if Nordhaus and Shellenberger had this in mind, but their article on the death of environmentalism was instructive to refocus the discussion into one that had a prayer of success.  Perhaps, their intent is the same here. Clearly both attacks on this problem are appropriate.

Unclear who they mean by "environmentalists," and what they mean by "environmentalism," and why they declare it dead.  To my knowledge, inasmuch as environmentalists have spoken on economic matters concerning the effects of global warming, their sense of "economy" is rather different from the sense used by, say, Dick Cheney, and his Closed Cabinet of Energy Policy Advisers.

Nordhaus/Shellenberger elicit shouts of mockery, flung shoes, tomatoes, when they bring up the name of FEMA.  Well, they are surely right to point to the Gulf Coast and to the South West as especially challenged.  But really, so much more needs to be done right now, already, not just in anticipation of a disaster.  As it is, the entire region from just south of Tijuana to just north of Las Vegas, and from just west of LA to just east of Phoenix, ought to be declared a "Maximum Capacity Quadrangle."  Nobody should be allowed to move in; people who move out should be given an incentive.  Probably the region should be more extensively defined, in both the US and Mexico, than what I suggested.

Unreasonable?  No more unreasonable than No/Sho's proposal that LA and San Diego and Phoenix and Las Vegas must account to a DC agency where they intend to get their water from.  That is madness.  There is no water for them, unless they steal it, from people who like to drink water.

As for the Gulf Coast, No/Sho do not begin to suggest the countless issues.  Are we really supposed to expect FEMA to deal with hurricane relief, when there has been no appreciation of the endangered state of the lower Mississippi River system, and of the pollution of the Gulf of Mexico?  There are so many different problems here, having to do with from sociology to marine biology to agricultural chemistry to riverine hydrology to tropical meteorology to the economy of the port of New Orleans, etc., etc.  Oh, and might I mention, jazzology?  Bluesology?  Herpetology?  (Don't get bit!)  Cajunology?

Sorry, I cannot claim to be up on post-Kyoto wisdom.  But I am not sure that is what this is really about.  I love Condor's recommendation, "All hands on deck!"  But I fear some hands are thinking they are better than others.  Some hands are thinking, they will do what they can, to get the most luxurious bedrooms and bathrooms, in the few years left before all life on earth perishes.  And to hell with all the others.

Global Warming is like an old ship sailing into a new hurricane.  Been there, done that.  The brigantine century old ship wooden ship was the subject of much talk ranging from "prepare for death" to "make ready for the future".  While in port the crew of carpenters made cabins comfortable, then we sailed the M.S. Explorer out of Puget Sound 20 miles into the ocean and encountered the 1975 Christmas day hurricane.  All ports were closed.

We were sinking fast, everything failed.  The crew of 24 locked themselves into their cabins and prepared to die, including the owner who was in way over his head.  Three sailors were alone on deck of a huge ship.   We prepared for failure, wore life jackets and made ready the life rafts, then did everything possible to save our ship and her crew.  The odds against survival were significant.  The situation was grim but not hopeless.  The First Mate took over and we turned the big old ship around, all most rolled over.    After a long heroic struggle we survived.    The three of us were sailors.  Our fear prevented motion sickness.  Our fear saved us from disaster.

This experience has taught me not to expect "all hands on deck" when things go terribly wrong.   Do we have a First Mate that will relieve captain GWB (now locked in his cabin) and turn our ship of state around?

Terrific story, Sunflower.  You ask exellent questions.  When I am in trouble, I hope to find you on my side.

Good to see you on deck, take the helm's wheel while I go pound on some cabin doors.

Sorry Sunflower, I'm missing the point.  We helped create this situation by our heavy consumption of energy, and to abate the effects, we're all going to have to take action on many fronts.  One of them is to seriously diminish our use of energy through tough conservation.  Another is to push our local, state and federal officials to adopt policies that favor alternatives to fossil based energies.  
This cannot be done by hoping for a First Mate that can remove the captain.  It will take all hands to conserve to make a dent in demand, and will take all hands to put enough pressure on our elected officials for them to take action.

I think we need to be working both on prevention and dealing with the consequences. But rather than some national act, I think what we need to be doing is getting together in our communities to create a plan and strategize how we can make it through the tough times to come. It will vary depending on where we live. And regardless of where we live, we will be impacted by climate change, mostly in negative ways. How could it be otherwise? Species have adapted over hundreds, thousands of years to our present climate and this is going to change -- assuming we continue on as we are and I see no signs to indicate otherwise despite the recent media attention. The result will be devastated ecosystems not a better growing season in colder climates. So it only makes sense to begin planning for the shifts we'll be experiencing.
   At the same time, however, I continue to believe there's plenty we can do to make a difference in how severe it becomes. I could be in deep denial here, but for my own emotional and spiritual sanity I need to believe this. Just that it's possible, not that it's a given. And on the off chance that we can greatly mitigate, despite everything that's already happening, then we must work to prevent, prevent, prevent however we can.
   Whether the federal acts described in the op ed piece are good or not, I don't know. I do know that in places like the Gulf Coast where hurricanes are going to be more severe, obviously something has to give. It's just common sense. But red tape was one of the problems after Katrina. The powers that be actually preventing people from coming in to help. Unbelievable! It seemed like government often got in the way, rather than facilitating solutions. I'd hate to make it worse than it already is.

I know global warming really screws environmental campaigns, it screwed my old growth nature conservancy, and feeling good is denial.  Mitigation does not feel good nor useful.

Metaphors aside, leadership is the issue.  We must not "stay the course" with mitigation.   I'm not suggesting mutiny.  GWB has retired to his bubble, is not available to set a new course, not responding to climate change, censors science.

I have traveled the world and we, in the USA, are the leaders of science, technology, and economy.  Science shows that carbon-free energy can be less expensive than the cost of coal.  Science and technology must be employed and deployed around the world.   Leading science does not happen on a local level.  Locally, we are stuck using off-the-shelf products.  I own a Prius, a solar home, and do not fly.  Even if all my neighbors do the same thing, very unlikely, global warming will still destroy our lives, prepared or not.

Technically, the Earth is a solar collector operating at a stagnant temperature.  Melting ice increases absorptivity plus CO2 ~ CH4 lowers emissivity of this collector.  Both work together to raise the stagnant temperature of the Earth.  It is a black body radiation formula to the fourth power of temperature.  The graph leaps off the page.  It will get too hot for familiar life (and civilization) on our planet.  

This goes beyond money, and who is right.   We are heading directly into global destruction.

We need leadership here and NOW.   We are all in serious trouble.   The USA must turn around before its too late.   I say screw mitigation.   (OK, I'm getting a little angry here.  I'm not sleeping very well anymore.)

"Why we need a Global Warming Preparedness Act." This isn't about preparedness. This is about the current regime starting to get scared and seeing that there may be a way in for them to toss a few no-bid contracts out to the usual suspects and make large bundles off of the current high rate of fear of Global Warming.

I am very interested in whatever it will take to build an environmentally sustainble future.  But one of the things I am sure it will not require is a Global Warming Preparedness Act with corporations like Halliburton standing by to build levees...

This is clearly a case of PR spin to get those ignorant of the real issues to look to the government to do it for them.