<...it would need dramatic leaps in technology, such as working fusion reactors, solar panels the size of Manhattan floating in space, and a "global grid" of superconducting power transmission lines to distribute electricity without loss around the world.

Even short-term "defensive" measures – such as removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and burying it in underground reservoirs, or filling the upper atmosphere with reflective molecules, or building a 1,250-mile-wide mirror in space to divert some of the sun's rays – remain far beyond our capability, said Dr Martin Hoffert, professor of physics at New York University.



Of course, we could just invest a bit of money to bring normal fission technology up to snuff, but what fun would that be? Jerry Pournelle and many others are big on the solar power satellite concept, and point out that developing them would probably not cost much more than a major Mideast military effort.

Then again, the scientists predicting the temperature rise might be full of shit, too. Doesn't really matter. We will need more and better power sources for an advancing world even if there is no global warming threat. Oil may not peter out as soon as SM thinks, but it ain't going to last forever.

The full paper is only available with an AAAS subscription, but the abstract follows (some interesting names in the author list):

Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet



Martin I. Hoffert, Ken Caldeira, Gregory Benford, David R. Criswell, Christopher Green, Howard Herzog, Atul K. Jain, Haroon S. Kheshgi, Klaus S. Lackner, John S. Lewis, H. Douglas Lightfoot, Wallace Manheimer, John C. Mankins, Michael E. Mauel, L. John Perkins, Michael E. Schlesinger, Tyler Volk, Tom M. L. Wigley

Stabilizing the carbon dioxide-induced component of climate change is an energy problem. Establishment of a course toward such stabilization will require the development within the coming decades of primary energy sources that do
not emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, in addition to efforts to reduce end-use energy demand. Mid-century
primary power requirements that are free of carbon dioxide emissions could be several times what we now derive from fossil fuels (~10^13 watts), even with improvements in energy efficiency. Here we survey possible future energy sources, evaluated for their capability to supply massive amounts of carbon emission-free energy and for their
potential for large-scale commercialization. Possible candidates for primary energy sources include terrestrial solar
and wind energy, solar power satellites, biomass, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, fission-fusion hybrids, and fossil fuels
from which carbon has been sequestered. Non-primary power technologies that could contribute to climate
stabilization include efficiency improvements, hydrogen production, storage and transport, superconducting global
electric grids, and geoengineering. All of these approaches currently have severe deficiencies that limit their ability to stabilize global climate. We conclude that a broad range of intensive research and development is urgently needed to produce technological options that can allow both climate stabilization and economic development.



Hmmm. I see they DO address fission here. Wonder why the newspaper article overlooked it.