Ahem! wrote:

We have a better chance of surviving an economic ice age than
the results of global warming.

This statement suggests you know what you're talking about! You've got
any figures or research to back this up? Personally my gut feeling says
that an immediate stop on the usage of oil and derivatives would not
only mean an "economic ice age", it just would mean an end to
civilization as we *currently* know it. The world would definitely not
support the amount of people it currently holds. The thing is, oil and
co permeates pretty much the whole of our current civilization. Stop
using it all and civilization collapses. I wouldn't dare doing any
remarks about the consequences but one thing is sure, unemployment is
the least one has to worry about in the world you're suggesting.

I guess the sensible strategy would be, reduce oil-usage where possible
but not at the cost of everything. It is even quite foolish just burning
up the only source of plastics one has.

Starting up the nuclear powerplants would be a very good thing to do at
least for the next 50 years or so. Wind-, solar- and waterpower should
be stimulated as much as possible and not by the way it is currently
done. Companies currently are offering it as long as the consumer pays
the check. It should be subsidized as much as possible to attract as
much consumers as possible.

And much more funds for research into a hydrogen-based economy instead
of the lousy $1 bln Bush currently allocated. Actually, the current
state of technology would support a move to hydrogen. There are some
downsides (lesser range is one of them) but I guess it's the
oil-industry that holding tabs on the move. It not only would mean for
them a huge write-off of their current investments but they also had to
make huge new ones. I guess it's only a government that could push for
this move and literally pour it into law whereby it becomes mandatory
for the oil-industry to move away from their current investments. IMO
this would be the only way.

--
Rich