Before I commit to paying higher taxes and energy bills the Goreist's need to show the preponderance of the evidence shows:
1) The Earth is warming. (It has not since 1998)
2) A significant part of this warming is due to usage of fossil fuels.
3) That the benefits from reducing the damages caused by global warming will outweigh the huge costs to economies that will be incurred in taxing and regulating fossil fuel usage. (Many believe global warming will be a net benefit to mankind, more food for the growing population. Who can be against that?)
4) That it is possible for worldwide cooperation that actually reduces global warming significantly.
I am not a Goreist, I am a Greenie. But I'll try to answer your four points:
1) The "Earth" is not "Warming". The changes in climate attributed to the large level of CO2 in the atmosphere are collectively referred to as Global Warming, or Climate Change. We will see extreme weather changes and events - including extreme cold. Basically the planet will soon not be able to sufficiently support the human population - if we continue to live the way we currently do. I'm pretty sure I clarified this point earlier.
2) It's not just fossil fuels. In a layman's nutshell: our extreme and
unsustainable use of the earth's resources (and use of various power sources to create, move and use these resources) is causing an extreme level of CO2. It makes sense. Common sense. All these buildings, roads, cars, electricity, gadgets, etc etc etc etc everywhere - it's not reasonable to assume that their production, distribution and use can be having NO or even a negligible effect on the planet.
3) People are highly innovative creatures. There is some amazing technology out there. It's just a matter of turning the
best science into the
right policies -and getting the government and corporations to support the right ideas while following the best processes. (Carbon sequestration has not been sufficiently trialled, unfortunately there are plants springing up all over the place. No wonder people are sceptical).
Also, your economy is already completely and utterly ******. Why not try some new things, try to implement some changes to the modern western lifestyle and see if it doesn't improve general happiness and wellbeing? Humans are happier when they are surrounded by nature. And considering the way most US cities are laid out (making you all so reliant upon cars) I'm sure US citizens would be happier if there was a convenient and clever new public transport system (that just so happens to be green).
4) If the idea is sold in the right way and information is shared properly, we could probably convince developing countries to cooperate.
I probably sound grossly optimistic but I don't think there's an excuse here for wilful ignorance. This is a serious issue and trying to look for reasons to not support a reduction in CO2, rather than looking for ways to kill two birds with one stone (stable economy + reduced CO2 = a planet that humans can live comfortably on for years to come) just seems ...... silly.