In the 1960's and 1970's, through the concerted efforts of well meaning organizations like Greenpeace, the nuclear power industry was destroyed. In their attempt to do good this organization indirectly caused the construction of untold numbers of carbon emitting power stations. In our current attempt to "do good" it is important not to let our hubris lead us to make mistakes that will cost future generations. No scientifically accepted model says the Earth with turn into a Venus-like desert. Average temperatures are expected to rise 2 - 12 degrees F by 2100 according to the EPA. Sea levels are expected to rise at most 2 meters by 2100 according to the IPCC. If it costs us a mere 1-2% of our GDP each year to prevent that change, over the course of 100 years that adds up: Current World GDP (About 64 Trillion USD) * 1.02 ^ 100 = $ 460 Trillion Dollars For $460 Trillion dollars we could move everyone within a mile of the ocean inland, build greenhouses to supply the entire world's food supply, and plant 100 billion trees with money left over.

I'm not the mod but obviously your comment was marked overrated for a number of reasons. Ascribing it to an agent of BP or DuPont is a delightful display of your paranoid personality disorder. As though the people that run this world give a crap about your high and mighty opinions. A glance at the prolific number of comments you make on Slashdot each and everyday reveals you have very little to do with your life but try to prove others dumber than you. Well done. But, back to your comment. It was modded overrated because it is dismissive without much substance. You make assertions without backing them up. Some of those assertions are just plain wrong. For example, the original poster makes a valid point about the role of fossil fuels in the development of agricultural revolution. Your assertion that things can be grown just as efficiently organically is baseless, incorrect, deluded hippie-speak. On to your completely incorrect, yet ironically entertaining, understanding of economics. If something is "cost-effective" that means it is profitable to use it instead of alternatives. Do you see how stupid it sounds when I say "BP and DuPont could make a larger profit by switching from oil to algae, but instead they are financing a conspiracy to make smaller profits -- just so they can destroy the Earth" ? Its ridiculous and reveals a person who, behind those words, sees the world in an illogical way. The only consistency I see to your words is that you feel everyone (except you) is evil and everyone is out to get you. I would go on, but since you don't generally give people the consideration of thoughtful discourse, I see no point. But, if you get a chance, define narcissist.

Its much easier to adapt to climate change than it is to control the global climate.

Parking lots in Phoenix seem to do just fine.