Rework our ridiculous regulatory system so that we can begin immediate development and construction of nuclear power plants--using modern technology, not 1950s reworks--to replace hydrocarbon plants. Reduce or remove regulations making it difficult or impossible to utilize non-conventional power sources. Remove any Federal funds and programs that subsidize the oil industry, and let the prices and costs of exploration rise to where they ought to be to encourage alternatives. Make reasonable laws pertaining to pollution that actually balance costs and results. Tell the idiots demanding 99.9999 percent results regardless of cost to sit down and shut up.

Long term solutions include decentralized solar power, fuel cells, better electrical cars, and other workable ideas. Let the market do the deciding, not just academic fantasies. Note that the hybrid cars are red-hot sellers, while nobody would touch the electric with a ten-foot pole. Why this is is not clear, but consumers made their choices. As hybrids develop, and the sales drive research, the batteries will do more of the work. Watch what happens.

Fuel cells that "burn" hydrocarbons still dump carbon somewhere, but I don't know where or how. Hydrogen-using fuel cells don't. I still think that this will be a breakthrough technology quite soon, leading to a unit that you can plug into your natural gas line to make electricity for your house. You can get these now, but they're expensive.

Jerry Pournelle, who is not that happy about the war in Iraq, has pointed out that we could be spending the billions we have spent defending the Middle East in the past decades putting solar power satellites in orbit. It's not quite that simple, but he has a point.

The thing about all these approaches is that they are good ideas even if there is no human factor in global warming. Frankly, oil is too valuable a resource just to burn for energy.

It will help when capitalism spreads around the world, raising living standards to the point where they don't have to use 1930s coal plants for power, or rape forests to burn wood for fuel.

That being said, I'm not interested in listening to U.N. socialists whose sole goal in all this is to cut the knees out from under the hated West. And if you think things like Kyoto don't have that at the bottom line, look again.

BTW, tossing out the nuclear power solution and seeing how it is received, is one good way to separate those seriously concerned about climate issues from those who are primarily looking at this as a political weapon. When I was back in college, you could tell when someone had an agenda when they got upset about you suggesting a "technological solution" to an environmental problem.