What we need to do now (not part of assignment)

We need to focus our priorities on renewable, domestic energy sources. It is in the interest of the United States and the world environment to do so. Investments in technology like cellulosic ethanol (currently my favorite transition technology) would produce enormous geopolitical benefits for the United States. Imagine the possibilities of our foreign policy if we no longer had to worry about foreign oil. The Middle East would be stripped of the majority of its relevance, reducing its clout and its ability to raise funds. We're paying for the Iranian nuclear program (peaceful or not, either way). We're sending our money into the unknown where it can potentially fund terrorism. Imagine all the current oil money flowing into the coffers of domestic farmers and refiners instead. Many whine that cellulosic ethanol will require billions of dollars more to perfect and implement. Yet what could the 1/2 trillion dollar estimated cost of the Iraq war have done for programs like cellulosic ethanol? The War on Terror is extremely important, however the need for a domestic replacement for petroleum supersedes it in the short term; the War would be more easily successful if we could perfect that ethanol process, bolster our economy, and then return our attention to it. Not to mention, an economy based on cellulosic (and corn/soybean ethanol, if it could remain price-competitive) ethanol is carbon-neutral, which solves yet another problem. The infrastructure exists: we have the fueling stations and increasing numbers of flex-fuel vehicles. If we can perfect cellulosic ethanol, then agricultural waste and other plant material can be easily turned into the carbon-neutral basis for our economy. This would give us the time we need in order to develop renewable supplies of electricity, which in turn could form the basis for a clean hydrogen economy. Here's an abstract timeline: (dates not given because it's simply a potential sequence of events, not a prediction)

Cellulosic ethanol process perfected ------> production and refining infrastructure created ------> carbon neutrality achieved in the transportation sector ------> carbon emissions slowed down from the United States, resulting in more time for renewable sources of electricity to be developed -------> clean electricity provides basis for electrolysis-based hydrogen ------> hydrogen infrastructure developed ------> clean hydrogen economy

Keeping energy dollars spent domestically in the domestic economy would produce obvious economic benefits (probably more than enough to justify the investment), as well as removing the political Achilles heel of foreign petroleum from the United States. The environmental benefits are side-effects, but excellent ones. Thus would the carbon problem in the US be solved through a self-strengthening measure, rather than business-depressing carbon caps imposed by a green-minded but misled Congress.

Sites that have evidence for global warming ( Again, I acknowledge climate change, though I am uncertain of what degree of significance our actions will have) :

The scientific consensus on climate change: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The EPA's information page:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Borderline propaganda found in Google search for "global warming":
http://www.climatehotmap.org/

Answers to the Assignment Questions

1.) Fossil fuel usage, industrialization, CO2 levels, and average temperature are all directly related. Each has increased alongside the other. (And though these trends have a mathematical relationship, I stand by my earlier statement that trends are not sufficient proof to pin total responsibility on humans. An exacerbated natural trend is an equally if not more plausible interpretation of these trends)
2.) The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement under the UN intended to reduce world CO2 emissions. This is intended to occur either through lowering emissions directly, or by buying and selling "Carbon Credits" in the international community. Major signatories: China, Canada, India, major members of the EU, and Russia. Note the absence of the US and Australia. (source: Wikipedia)
3.) Three possible effects of global warming are vastly more powerful storms, increased droughts/ heat waves, and rising sea levels.
4.) Three ways to reduce personal energy consumption: Use CFL bulbs, use appliances prudently by turning them off when not in use, and use a programmable thermostat to reduce furnace usage when it's not needed.
5.) A new technology that could change energy use is the hydrogen-based economy. Using renewable resources to produce electricity for clean electrolysis of water would provide hydrogen without harmful emissions. Hydrogen would then be the primary source of energy; it would replace gasoline through fuel cells in cars. It would replace batteries through small-scale fuel cells. Essentially, our energy economy would operate on the energy of electricity produced through renewable sources, which is conveyed to the market in the form of hydrogen. Forgive the whimsical nature of this answer, but such an economy would require a Herculean effort far beyond that of any of the greatest public works projects ever. Though it's possible, it's a long, long way off in the future.

Climate Change
Global warming, as we all know, is a highly volatile debate in the modern political and scientific arena. Billion-dollar profits for corporations, political career paths, and the future of our planet and race are all at stake. Historical climate change is an undeniable fact; there have been ice ages and warmer, balmier times over the years. As manifest logic would imply, humans were not responsible for those changes. In the current times, however, humans have the population and technology necessary to affect the natural cycles. Since the industrial revolution, humans have undeniably released a steadily increasing amount of greenhouse gases. The effect of humans cannot be discounted without also dispensing with logic: CO2, CH4, and the other greenhouse gases produce the greenhouse effect. Humans have released increasing amounts of these gases in the last 250+ years. Hence, humans have enhanced the greenhouse effect. No person may correctly state that humans have had no effect on our climate. The question that I raise is how much have humans affected the climate? How much CO2 and CH4 are we truly releasing, and how much must there be in order to significantly change our climate? It is my opinion that the current climate change is a natural one that is being exacerbated but not caused by human activity. The question of the day is, again, how much are we exacerbating the change? As far as I know, we have no truly definitive answer yet. The arguments for human responsibility tend to lack lack unquestionable facts, and simply point to trends between human industrialization and the warming cycle. Arguments for the natural responsibility foolishly assert in essence that greenhouse gases from human society don't somehow compound the natural cycle of those gases. There is no acceptable answer at the moment. We need to find out how much the greenhouse gases must increase in order to affect a significant change , and then we can compare that amount to how much we produce. If our emissions are close to that critical amount, then we can justify limits on carbon and other greenhouse gases. If not, then we can focus that effort on other environmental initiatives.