1) Global Depression would be bad, and

2) There’s a whole boatload of things to do that we haven’t even tried yet (see Joe’s piece on Wedges). And I mean good-ol-college-try tried.

Think of the scene from ‘Titanic’ where there are two rich guys who think it’ll be cool to ‘go done with the ship’. Remember their faces when the water is at their ankles? That would be the look of regret. As in ‘I had other options, but I thought doing nothing in a showy sort of way would be neat’.

PS. BTW – All the ‘experts’ have to be Moms and Dads.

Perhaps you meant sarcastic… though I would think using the issue of torture as sarcastic humor is also a bit beneath anyone trying to write serious journalism.

I am not calling for it to happen, I am calling for a debate on it to get some input from experts to see if it is an option. Global warming will be catastrophic – a depression shouldn’t. We need to look at all the paths forward to survival now I think!

[that it would be more beneficial for mankind and nature if our economies where to collapse now]

and your obscene call for ideas to put that into action:

[How could this be archived?]

are the very charges the strongest denialists use to paint we believers as near-terrorists.

Why do you want to give them proof that we would sacrifice anything to tackle global warming….even welcoming a long-term global economic depression?

I’ll have to check with my two children to see if they approve of you cancelling their future.

John McCormick

This is an debate that we should seriously consider. How bad has Climate Change got…should we voluntarily shutdown our economies to fight Global Warming?

Are we at a point, given the outcome of the G8 meeting, that it would be more beneficial for mankind and nature if our economies where to collapse now, rather than march on causing climatic catastrophe.

I believe that this is a radical alternative measure which should should not be ruled out in our efforts to tackle Global Warming. What do you think?

Part II – How could this be archived?

“They argued that this increase in regulation should be on the next president’s record,” not Bush’s, said a participant in the lengthy interagency debate, referring principally to officials in the office of Vice President Cheney, on the White House Council on Environmental Quality, on the National Economic Council and in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

I.e. what the White House fears is that their clients would perceive this as betrayal (hint: the White House does not consider the American people to be their clients).

Then there was this:

Hutto, a former Cato Institute intern and Bush campaign volunteer during the Florida vote recount in 2000, whose grandfather patented at least seven piston inventions for the Ford Motor Company, has “an anti-regulatory philosophy and concern about what regulation means for the American way of life. He would talk, for example, about not wanting greenhouse gas controls to do away with the large American automobile,” said the meeting participant.

See, large autos are goal worth sacrificing our children to. Shameful.