What are the Stakes, Again?

My gold standard for judging the sincerity of global warming advocates who think that runaway temperature increases will destroy the Earth is whether they support nuclear power as a means to combat that horrible future. If they don't support nuclear energy to replace carbon-producing energy sources, I have to doubt that they really believe the planet is doomed.

A close second in my standards is natural gas fracking. If a method that is relatively safe to bring up an energy source far better than coal is rejected, is the Earth really doomed?

Ask a green what he or she thinks about fracking, and you’re likely to get an earful of criticism about methane leaks, poisoned groundwater, and climate change disaster. But a new report from the ecologically minded Breakthrough Institute (BI) makes the case that shale gas actually has a net environmental benefit. Nevermind the boosts to our energy security, and economy that fracking provides; the controversial drilling process is worth embracing on green merits alone.

After that we can get to personal lifestyle choices like house size, car size (and number), and use of airplanes for travel. If you are not terribly carbon stingy in those areas yet think sorting your glass for recycling makes up for the rest, I don't want to hear about how global warming will destroy us.

Absent people acting like it is a crisis, how can I have much respect for that position?

Tip to Instapundit.