An interesting "problem" here is there's an assumption there is a "problem" with the way the earth and it's climate is changing. -- The earth and it's climate is in a constant flux of change - and has been for over 4 Billion years. In the history of our planet, humankind is a like the last inch of a 26 mile marathon - and has the same amount of effect on the whole picture. Taking just one miniscule example of the massively complex matrix of planetory forces that make humankind's activities appear like a campfire on the surface of the sun is the measurable dramatic increase over the past four decades in the sub-surface volcanic activity along the Pacific oceanic ridge. Is that a "problem"? Yes. - A problem to whom? -- The sea life along the Pacific ridge that has to struggle to adapt to warming ocean currents being produced by that volcanic activity, and all the people who depend on that sea life for their livelihood, and all the people living along the Pacific ridge whose llives are affected by the weather changes due to the planetary ebb and flow of sub-oceanic volcanic activity.

Now, comes the pertinent question: Is there anything humankind can do to control volcanic activity anywhere on the planet? So far, the answer is: No. However, the warming currents of Pacific oceanic ridge is a major part of the included data within the computer "models" attemting to amass data specifically designed by the AGW modeling software to point to an anthropological cause of the warming ocean currents, and natural global changes at large. The simple fact: humankind can not create nor prevent volcanic activity, yet that activity is included as part of the data string in an anthropological climate change computer model theorem, irrevocably invalidates the theorem and renders the model absolutely useless scientifically, however possibly quite useful politically.

Today's antropolotically generated climate change theorists are like babies playing in a sandbox in their backyard and observing the changes they make in their sandbox as a theoretical proof of the imminent destruction of the planet's desert environments by humankind.

What everyone concerned must do to actually understand their home planet and its place and interaction in the unfathomably vast cosmos is first gain a thorough and complete understanding of the "mathematics of scale". Once that is achieved, and that knowledge is applied to the juxtaposition of humankind and all of its activities to the planetory and cosmic forces at work every passing nanosecond, then and only then will a clear understanding that humankind's influence does not amount to much more than a momentary blip on the cosmic radar screen be achieved.

Very simple exercises like the above can answer more questions than one can ask in a lifetime. -- We are quite capable of destroying our tiny personal envronments on the planet's surface by amassing ourselves in grotesquely overpopulated concentrations, or personally poisoning our tiny personal envrionments so we dramatically make our lives miserable. But, all of that doesn't amount to a hill of beans on a planetary scale.

To wit: if the doubling of today's atmospheric CO2 was imminently dangerous to anything on the planet - including humans and polar bears - then the atmospheric CO2 levels during the Eocene Epoch, which was over 20 times the atmospheric CO2 concentration of what is today, then it would have been 20 times more devastating to all of life at that time too. Yet, the Eocene Epoch of 24 million years produced over 96% of all the higher life forms - the mammalian species - which have ever existed on our planet.

In other words: If our atmospheric conditions today are a "problem", then the atmospheric conditions of the Eocene Epoch was 20 times worse of a "problem", and yet if that immense Eocene "problem" hadn't ever come to exist, none of us would be here today to discuss it. Therefore, there literally is no method or model, regardless of how cleverly it is conceived and executed, that will ever be able to unequivocally prove that the miniscule levels of atmospheric CO2 we have today, as compared to the enormous atmospheric levels of CO2, which existed during our planet's most prolific period production of diversified life in an accelerated evolution of higher life forms, could even remotely be labeled as a "problem" - to human life - to non-human life - and all plant life.

When all political motivations and manipulations are stripped from science, it is astonishingly amazing how clarity emerges and how easy it becomes to understand the complexity of the matrix which is our world, our cosmos, our universe.

"Climate Change" may not classify as a "slogan" per se, but it is most definitely a moniker, which now serves to colloquially mean: humans are responsible for everything "unpleasant" that occurs in any part of our natural enviroment. However, the actual use of the moniker is to gain and weild more political power over humanity in general. How much more politicaly powerful can one get than dictating what the masses can and cannot do within their own environment? ---

AGW - Climate Change (which is in fact constantly changing whether any human exists or not), etc, etc, is no more scientifically based than the proposal the Moon is made of green cheese. It's all political manipulation of people who call themselves scientiests and educators, who are knowingly willing to be used as puppets for the cause, and will say whatever the political agenda de jure wants them to say, and will spike and juggle the data to spit out models in whatever form or manner the same power-agendas need it to be for their purposes.

The Cold War fell off the political radar screen, Russia - the arch enemy of the West - disintegrated, nuclear destruction of the planet became yesterday's news, and most other "dire crisis" petered out. So, politics desparately needed a crisis to beat all crisis to reinvigorate and reestablish their reason for existing. There aren't many crisis that can peg the crisis meter like anthropological destruction of the planet's environment, and folks: that's all there is to it. All the rest is Mother Nature just doing her thing as she's done for over 4 Billion years - and nothing we do will ever change that. Compared to Mother Nature, we - and all that we do - are nothing more than a tiny zit on her ass.

There are many assumptions in your post.

Scientifically, only one assumption can be a part of any theorem. An assumption, called a premise, is made from previously proven data, then a series of steps are taken in strict logical sequence to arrive at a conclusion. As long as no part of the theorem contradicts any other part, and does not contradict any part of any other proven data, then the conclusion can be vetted as valid.

Your first assumption: there is a "problem", but a definition of what exactly is the nature of the "problem" is lacking.

Taking just one miniscule example of the massively complex matrix of planetary forces that make humankind's activities appear like a campfire on the surface of the sun is the measurable dramatic increase over the past four decades in the sub-surface volcanic activity along the Pacific oceanic ridge. Is that a "problem"? Yes. - A problem to whom? -- The sea life along the Pacific ridge that has to struggle to adapt to warming ocean currents being produced by that volcanic activity, and all the people who depend on that sea life for their livelihood, and all the people living along the Pacific ridge whose llives are affected by the weather changes due to the planetary ebb and flow of sub-oceanic volcanic activity.

But here's the pertinent question: Is there anything humankind can do to control volcanic activity anywhere on the planet? So far, the answer is: No. However, the warming currents of Pacific oceanic ridge is a major part of the included data within the computer "models" attemting to amass data specifically designed by the AGW modeling software to point to an anthropological cause of the warming ocean currents, and natural global changes at large. The simple fact: humankind can not prevent volcanic activity. Yet, that activity is included as part of the data string in an anthropological climate change computer model theorem, which irrevocably invalidates the theorem and renders the model scientifically useless, however possibly quite useful politically.

Today's antropolotically generated climate change theorists are like babies playing in a sandbox in their backyard and observing the changes they make in their sandbox as a theoretical proof of the imminent destruction of the planet's desert environments by humankind.

What everyone concerned must do to actually understand their home planet and its place and interaction in the unfathomably vast cosmos is first gain a thorough and complete understanding of the "mathematics of scale". Once that is achieved, and that knowledge is applied to the juxtaposition of humankind and all of its activities to the planetory and cosmic forces at work every passing nanosecond, then and only then will a clear understanding be achieved that humankind's influence does not amount to much more than a momentary blip on the cosmic radar screen.

Very simple exercises like the above can answer more questions than one can ask in a lifetime. -- We are quite capable of destroying our tiny personal envronments on the planet's surface by amassing ourselves in grotesquely overpopulated concentrations, or personally poisoning our tiny personal envrionments so we dramatically make our lives miserable. But, all of that doesn't amount to a hill of beans on a planetary scale.

To wit: if the doubling of today's atmospheric CO2 was imminently dangerous to anything on the planet - including humans and polar bears - then the atmospheric CO2 levels during the Eocene Epoch, which was over 20 times the atmospheric CO2 concentration of what is today, then it would have been 20 times more devastating to all of life at that time too. Yet, the Eocene Epoch of 24 million years produced over 96% of all the higher life forms - the mammalian species - which have ever existed on our planet.

In other words: If our atmospheric conditions today are a "problem", then the atmospheric conditions of the Eocene Epoch was 20 times worse of a "problem", and yet if that immense Eocene "problem" hadn't ever come to exist, none of us would be here today to discuss it. Therefore, there literally is no method or model, regardless of how cleverly it is conceived and executed, that will ever be able to unequivocally prove that the miniscule levels of atmospheric CO2 we have today, as compared to the enormous atmospheric levels of CO2, which existed during our planet's most prolific period production of diversified life in an accelerated evolution of higher life forms, could even remotely be labeled as a "problem" - to human life - to non-human life - and all plant life.

When all political motivations and manipulations are stripped from science, it is astonishingly amazing how clarity emerges and how easy it becomes to understand the complexity of the matrix which is our world, our cosmos, our universe.

So, let's see: You buy an electric car - at a heavy premium at the car dealer. -- Then, you spend bookoos more bucks to install a charging station at your home - or get in line to use the apartment complex's charging stations, and pay whatever the apartment complex management says you must pay for the electricity and use of their recharging station. Either way; you pay a king's ransom to the electric company for your electricity "fuel", and you're at the mercy of the franchised monopoly raising their rates exponentially without any recourse. -- Remember: you can't go across the street to the other corner where another electric company is selling their electricity cheaper. Franchised monopolies - by law - don't allow competition in their protected areas. So, you have to borrow and invest $50K into a windmill system to keep from having to own an electric company to make the cost of operating your electric car barely affordable. And, when the wind isn't blowing, you will need to borrow and invest another $50K into a solar panel system to take up the slack. And when the sun isn't shining, and the wind isn't blowing, and your loans on your electricity producing equipment and maintenance have you tapped out, and you can't afford to buy your electricity from the sky-high electric company, you can just call the boss and tell him/her you can't come to work because your electric car is dead. Oh yeah, they'll be very understandable, and won't fire you after the umpteenth time you've had to do that. And, when everything is going fine, you decide you want to go to the mountain on a ski trip. But, you don't know if climbing the steep grades into the mountains will deplete your batteries before you make it to the next recharging station. And, if you succeed in making it to the next recharging station, you have to take a 6 to 8 hour break waiting on your car to recharge. -- Wow! --- this is sounding better and better all the time! My questions: Where are all the advocates of electric vehicles making all this money to pay for all this? -- And why do they have so much time on their hands to deal with all of the challenges? The rest of us would like to know where you get your magic wizard wand to make all this wishful thinking actually work in a world of crashing economies and massive world unrest. Or is it all smoke and mirrors to bleed all the rest of us dry, then blame it all on the oil companies when the electric car fantasy fails miserably on a scale so crushing, no one can recover from it. Yeah, this is sounding better and better all the time.....

First and foremost: all the celebrities and government officials running public service advertisements, standing by an electric car and claiming it can be recharged for a few dollars makes me see bloody red; a bold-faced unbelievably outrageous lie that makes all conspiracy theories pale by comparison. -- They're either extremely stupid or they have huge investments in electric companies.

(If you use your neighbor's electricity - you can charge your electric car for free - until he shoots you and your stupid car too.)

A tiny 2-passenger street ready electric car requires 2.8KW over 8 hours to fully charge it's batteries - with an operating range of 80 miles on one charge at less than 40 MPH. In stop and go traffic - even less of a range - but manufacturer's specs are unspecific on that. (I wonder why). And that is if you believe those optimal stats published by the manufacturer in the first place.

A central air conditioner system for a 2000 sq ft home uses about 3KW of electricity. Now, you know, I know, and everyone knows; if you ran your central air conditioner constantly for 8 hours each day - like charging a 2.8KW battery pack for 8 hours - your electric bill will be sky-high.

Graduate up to the four-passenger and six-passenger electric cars, and now you're talking about running 3 or 4 of your neighbors' central air conditioning systems constantly for 8 hours a day - and you pay for it all. --- And, who will you buy your "fuel" from? --- Oh yeah - that little consideration no one seems to think about.

You'll buy your "fuel" from the ELECTRIC COMPANY! -- You know - that franchised monopoly that raises rates whenever they damn-well please. Have you ever seen or heard of a protest to a proposed electric rate hike cause the rate hike to be cancelled - or even reduced? - I haven't! --- And, when electric vehicle demand for electricity goes sky high, and the electric company is crying alligator tears over not being able to keep up with it without a massive rate hike, any protests to the rate hike will sound like a mouse squeak at a rock concert.

As more electric cars are produced, the electricity rates will go up and up and up, and all electric car owners will be stuck with no option but to pay the "fuel" bill for their electric car - or start walking. And everyone else will have to go back to cooking their meals and heating their house with wood since they can't afford their electricity either anymore.

Then, the question arises: how many part-time jobs will you have to have to pay your electric bill - just to get you back and forth to work to all those jobs? But, wait! -- We can all go out and buy a gasoline or propane generator to recharge our electric cars - right? -- How ironic!

Oh - but it's all about the environment - right? See above.

Yeah - what about the environment? Have you ever read the bold warning labels on taking your rechargeable batteries to an authorized recycle center when they won't recharge anymore? - Why the warning? Because all rechargeable batteries - especially Lithium-ion batteries - are extremely toxic to the environment as they decompose!!! -- making mega-amounts of CO2 look like a breath of fresh air. -- PLUS: all electric batteries produce their own gas emissions - not noticeable when it's laptop battery, or even the lead-acid battery in a car - but very noticeable to the environment with the mass production of huge batteries required to run the mass production of electric cars. Get the picture, environmentalists?

What about material costs? -- Have you priced the Lithium-ion batteries now available for running cordless power tools? -- An 18V Lithium-ion battery costs around $100 - a battery that can run an electric motor about 100th the size and power of the tiniest electric motor used in electric cars. If you run that power tool everyday for a few hours - like in construction jobs - the 18V Lithium-ion battery will last about 9 months to a year before it won't recharge anymore. -- If the electronic control circuit inside the LI battery overheats and burns out before the recharge life is expended- the battery is useless - and another $100 is required to keep the power tool working. - LI batteries put under a heavy load and stress for extended periods of time are very prone to overheating and destroying themselves.

Large lithium-ion batteries and all other kinds of rechargeable battery configurations for electric cars are exactly the same. After you've paid a premium price to the car company, then a King's ransom to the electric company to keep your electric car running, when the batteries in the car needs replacing - guess what? --- it's time to get another part-time job. -- And, when the electric motor running your car needs replacing - it's time to junk the car for parts - and start all over again with the same scenario -- if you're that deep into masochism. $4.00/gallon for gasoline will look like the "good-ole-days", as it will be for cars that went over 100,000 miles without any major problems.

But we've forgot something. -- What about performance? Well, even with the Nissan demonstration of their new electric sports car (without any mention whatsoever by Nissan of how much of the battery charge was required to get the car to go from 0 to 60 in a comparable time to a small gasoline 4-cyl sports car) - the more performance we require from an electric car, the more the initial costs and operational costs go up exponentially. Economically, the limits abound.

It's quite simple if everyone just "thinks" about it: if electric motor/battery performance was actually comparable to internal combustion engines, electric lawn mowers would have done away with gasoline lawn mowers long ago - electric chainsaws would have done away with gasoline-driven chainsaws - etc, etc. All of the electric alternatives to yard machines have been around for several decades (my grandmother had an electric lawnmower in the late 50's) - much more than plenty of time to "improve" the technology to do away with the need for internal combustion engines - if it was possible. But, it isn't possible, which is why it hasn't happened, and never will.

The performance ratio isn't even close: to get a battery-pack and electric motor to produce the torque and horsepower of a 300hp 8 cylinder internal combustion engine, the battery pack and motor would have to be the size of the car itself. So, performance is sacrificed to make electric vehicles feasible. An electric 4 passenger sedan can perform "okay" with a 200 mile range with only the car's weight and the driver's weight being hauled. Put three other "normal-size" adults (forget hauling pro-football linebackers) in the car with the driver, and their luggage in the trunk, and the electric passenger car performs like a tiny 3-wheel electric car, with its mileage range reduced so far, you need a recharging station every 50 to 100 miles, with a 6 to 8-hour layover at the refueling station.

Physics is physics - regardless of technology: increase stress on an engine or motor - it's performance goes down while it uses a proportionately greater amount of fuel to produce the work. Physics binds us to reality: it's true of internal combustion engines, electric motor vehicles, and all other technology as well.

And, it's not even a matter of improving the technology; there's a natural physical limit to the torque and horsepower electric induction within copper windings can produce, and how efficient the electric motor can be in using electricity. To get more horsepower, you need more copper windings and more powerful batteries - it's just that simple.

Everyone talks about "future improvements". -- Improvements in electric motor and battery technology can only make it "cheaper" to produce, and nothing else. The initial cost of the vehicle may come down, but the operational costs of dealing with the electric company will go up and up, and the after-market replacement costs for the batteries and motors and supporting electronic technology will be exactly as it is with gasoline/diesel vehicle technology - it will be driven by supply and demand - and will go up accordingly. --- This is also true of all other vehicle alternative technologies - like fuel-cell hydrogen driven vehicles - exactly the same scenario - and considerably more dangerous by orders of magnitude as well with other major factors to consider.

And, what about the stress on the electric grid??? -- With a nation dependent on electric vehicles; when the grids go down, -- something our own sun's electromagnetic storms can cause -- the nation becomes totally paralyzed - not a nice scenario in a national emergency with terrorists drooling to take you down when you're vulnerable - or your own personal emergency! If the grid goes down and your electric car and the electric ambulances are all dead, you're dead too if you need to get to the hospital emergency room post haste to save your life. -- Does anyone think about these things???

A much better bet - for the economy and the environment: develop the technology for gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines to be considerably more efficient (which is already easily possible) and convert all large heavy-hauling vehicles to local abundantly available natural gas and burn the fuel at 95% efficiency, which is already possible, reducing emissions to levels that mother nature can easily recycle without any difficulty - that is; if we quit stripping the earth of its forests - most especially our rain forests.

And, fundamentally; immediately begin to practice serious birth control worldwide before we literally eat ourselves out of house, home, and planet, which is what is causing the massive destruction of forests for conversion to farmland. - Over-population is the source of the majority of all our social ills - at the base of it - and at the extension of it as we can easily see in the problems of massive over-population energy use that is driving the insanity for producing extremely ineffective, yet politically juicy, energy alternatives.

Electricity is great for running your blender - electric vehicles will put all our lives in a blender - and that won't feel good....