"I just think it would be nice to see some debate on this issue that didn't have an ideological core to it. Until that happens, I'd just as soon like to see it go away."

So, let us see the debate in terms of science.

The only thing we get from your side is opposition to use of energy.
Where are the solutions?

Can we establish that unless we want to return to world which has slavery, we need other ways of getting work done that doesn't involve using human or animal muscle?

Can we agree that a society which has plenty of cheap energy is less poor than societies which have less available energy?

So, what this world needs [supposing you want to do something about a majority of people living on less than 1 or 2 dollars a day] is more energy.

Can we agree that in terms of global energy needs of billions of people so that all can enjoy the same standards of living as say Europe, that such things as limiting it sources to solar energy and wind energy are not sufficient to meet this need [unless you want use solar energy from the space environment].

So what solutions do you have which do not involve CO2 emission?
[Assuming you think lowering CO2 emission are important?]
And why do we consider that America is the only country capable of doing anything about this?
Are Indians unable to do anything? What is China actually doing?

Btw:
China:
Population growth rate:
0.629% (2008 est.)
Net migration rate:
-0.39 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2008 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/ch.html
America:
Population growth rate:
0.883% (2008 est.)
Net migration rate:
2.92 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2008 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html
So, I don't need to hear some shit about population control.
Nor do what hear about the joys fluorescent bulbs or tire pressure.