While ever public opinion can be directed to a plethora of emotive and marketable environmental side issues, while ever public opinion can be kept confused, unsure and cynical of factual evidence on global warming issues, governments and legislators, who survive by following public opinion, won’t act wisely and responsibly in conflict with that perceived public opinion.

We argue and maintain that ending global warming and halting climate change is not a technically, and nor is it a financially problem.  Ending global warming and halting our catastrophic climate changes is an advertising and public relations exercise. It’s an image building, public relations war. But it is a war ultimately as lethal as any conventional war, wars that are structured on bombs and bullets and starvation and human fatalities.That is the essence of the war we are embroiled in. And it's a war you and I can’t afford to lose.

There is a growing conviction that a tipping point will be reached within, possibly the next decade, when chaotic climate change becomes irreversible and absolutely beyond all human control. The fossil fuel countries and corporations will have become totally and permanently victorious. Permanently, for when global warming becomes irreversible, arguments for abandoning the use of fossil fuels for energy become hypothetical, and philosophical, and almost meaningless. There will be no lifeboats on this Titanic, we call Earth.

But on the bright side, maybe the PR gurus  –

“Can’t fool all of the people all of the time”

(If you don't recomend this site to othere to view then the gurus will win will have one another point)

Soil carbon sequestration will bring the atmosphere right back to normal. Fertile soil is weathered, decomposed, geological material containing large quantities of organic matter, such as humus. These materials are made of carbon. Every bit of that carbon was once atmospheric carbon dioxide. So to remove the excess carbon dioxide from the air we simply “manufacture” fertile soil. We get our farmers to convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into carbon rich soil humus. Organic type farming does this. And so do grassland cell grazing techniques. No magic is involved.

Since the 1950s Allan Yeomans has been deeply involved in techniques for the rapid and economical enhancement of soil fertility. He combined this knowledge with his later studies in metrology and conceived the then totally new concept of using soil to eliminate global warming. His papers and lectures on his concept in the late 1980s and early 1990s both in Australia and the United States sparked a world interest in the interrelationship between soil fertility levels and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

As a result many now recognize soil as being an integral part of the solution to global warming.

Raise soil organic matter by one tenth of one percentage point a year, and we peg CO2 levels as of today. Raise them by 1.6% points and we get totally back to normal. Global warming is then finished. Go nuclear and go biofuels, and it stays finished.” Allan Yeomans. Asilomar Conference. Monterey Ca. 1990

Organic food producers create fertile soil easily. All farmers can. And they will if we ensure they are rewarded for so doing. In doing so there will be a massive reduction in the use of the agricultural chemicals we pour on, spray on and inject into our farm and grazing lands every year. The petrochemical industries naturally see such actions as a huge threat to their viability, and dream up arguments to counter those threats.

We must go for chemically free, organic type farming.

All dangers are relative, so even in a hugely biased and bigoted comparison with coal and gas generated energy, nuclear energy is ridiculously safe.

France is 100% nuclear plus 15% hydro, so it exports the excess carbon-free power to Spain, and makes a good profit doing so. Other EU countries complain bitterly that French nuclear power is just too competitive.

If France also switched to biofuels, like Brazil, it would be the first Western affluent country on the planet with zero anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Then we all do the same and global warming with its dangerous and chaotic weather effects would stop.

People are constantly being conditioned to believe that coal, and gas, and oil, are not really that hazardous, and are somehow actually safer than nuclear energy. Not true. Take a worst case scenario; A terrorist could cause more mischief and kill more people if got loose in a major city oil and gas terminal than he could ever do if he got into a nuclear power station.

If the CO2 is allowed to be dumped freely into the air, (as it is now and as it will be for the foreseeable future)  then a coal fired power station, conveniently close to an open cut coal mine, can produce the cheapest electricity. Compared to that, nuclear electricity is only marginally dearer, and that’s with everything included, waste disposal, decommissioning, mining, the lot.  Only hydro can be cheaper, but most of the good and inexpensive sites are already utilized.

Electricity from gas and oil is two or three times coal and nuclear prices. Wind energy and solar energy are four to over ten times the price of coal and nuclear. Wave and tidal power prices are worse still and on a world scale have insignificant serious generating potential.

Nuclear waste is a tiny problem with dozens of safe and cheap solutions. Nuclear energy is also sustainable energy. Using breeder reactors we have enough, easily mined uranium to last us for 6000 years. And then we have thorium in even bigger quantities to last us another several thousand years.

Like or not, to end global warming we have to go nuclear.

The biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel are most easily and most economically produced from sugarcane and oil palms. Both grow best in the hot wet tropics where farmers can produce 7,500 litres of ethanol or 4,500 litres of oil from one hectare, every year for ever. That’s approximately 900 gallons of ethanol and 500 gallons of diesel. At around US$85 a barrel, biodiesel and sugar based ethanol are way cheaper than petroleum based fuels. But easily manipulated world oil prices in the past have successfully frighten off substantial investment in biofuels. Nations must use tariffs to set minimum petroleum import prices to stop such systematic back stabbing.

The current anti-biofuel campaign concept is to argue that producing biofuels will lower the quantity of food produced in the world, and people will starve. To make this a plausible argument it is necessary to concentrate biofuel thinking and production onto grain crops. It is thus marketing wisdom for the oil industry and their supporters to quietly promote grain subsidies to farmers and grain/ethanol subsidies to producers.

To them it’s the lesser of two evils, for sugarcane is by far the best plant in the world for ethanol production. With sugar production you harvest the plant’s sap. It tastes sweet but has no nutritional value. Grains are seeds and are full of nutrients and contain minerals extracted from the soil and so many of us humans live, almost entirely on seeds. That creates a nice PR scenario. There are no minerals in sugar. It’s made from atmospheric carbon dioxide, sunlight and rain. The oil sheiks and oil barons are terrified of Citizen Cane.

When you mix a vegetable oil with ethanol and with a small quantity of a suitable catalyst they chemically combine to form biodiesel and glycerin (glycerol). You can do it at home. Currently the best and cheapest vegetable oil comes from the tropical palm oil tree (Elaeis guineensis). It’s now the most common oil palm. There are virtually no nutritious soil minerals in palm oil. In that it’s just like sugar.

Both sugarcane and the oil palm grow best in tropical rain forest lands. So for some “save the rain forest” is a very logical cause, to create and promote. However it is now conceded by biologists and chemists that tropical rain forests are neither an active carbon sink nor a net producer of oxygen. It was all just marketing. Biodiversity thus now becomes the prime marketing image. (Cynical maybe? But maybe we need to be.)

A massive switch to biofuels has to happen.

This is not about going back to some Kyoto nominated, already inflated, 1990s carbon dioxide levels. Cars were actually bigger than they are today.

Nor are we advocating some new 2009 placebo to placate us with more Harry Potter answers.

Nor are we talking about living in caves, and riding bicycles to the shopping center in the rain.

Nor is this about merely slowing down our current headlong charge to self-destruction.  This is about immediately pegging carbon dioxide levels at the current 380 ppm (parts per million) and then systematically reducing them to below 299 ppm which is close enough to safe pre-industrial levels. This is about increasing our standard of living, increasing our comfort, our health and our well being, and increasing the number and quality of our possessions. And this is about simultaneously shipping our fuel money to wet tropical Third World countries that will appreciate it, and giving them a chance to grow to be as affluent as their highest aspirations. We can end global warming, absolutely halt climate change and it really won’t really cost us a red cent.

This is all about us doing something right now that nobody else in this day and age seems to think is remotely possible. This is also about our very survival.

That is the mission, and we’re fast running out of time.