First, I firmly believe that by focusing specifically on climate change and CO2 emissions, we are focusing on the symptom and not the disease. It's like only treating a brain cancer patient for headaches. It's not that CO2 emissions are not potentially concerning, but within the debate we often forget that it is our actions that create CO2. Much of the debate had been scientific in nature, looking at how many tons of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere and the technology we need to develop to reduce our CO2 emmisions. What we often fail to realize is that the CO2 is simply a symbol of a very specific (and often destructive) lifestyle. We drive everywhere and have created our entire national infrastructure on the assumption of cheap fuel and massive mobility. We throw away, waste, and consume on a staggering and immoral scale. We pave everything. We expect strawberries in January from a world away. We export our cultural priorities abroad, asking the developing world to emulate our own consumption habits in order to create more global demand. These are the issues that need to addressed. If we concern ourselves with these problems, climate change will solve itself.

Additionally, we are falling into the classic "fallacy of technology." Many people believe that we can innovate our way out of climate change. The assumption is that, with enough solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars, we can continue to consume to our heart's content; our consumption will just be "greener." We have collectively forgotten that the answers to our problems may lie in the past -- not just in the future. And ultimately, We will eventually learn that faith in technology is faith in an idol. 

Hubris of man and global change

To a certain extent, what bothers me most about the climate change debate is the hubris that is brought to the debate. While it is very possible that 100 years of burning fossil fuels has contributed to climate change, the idea that we as humanity can arrest that change through our own "awesomeness," or that we can single-handedly destroy the planet with our emissions, are some fairly dramatic assertions. First, the environmentalists who are so passionate about climate change have forgotten about another environmental-social issue: peak oil. While there is no consensus about when "peak oil" will occur, it either has happened or will happen. As oil becomes more scarce, prices will rise and demand will go down. Our emissions will decrease, if only because of the simple laws of supply and demand.       
Additionally, research from both sides of the climate change argument have found that plants grow better when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. Those seeking to slow climate change argue that this will mean terrible allergies as plants such as ragweed create more pollen and seeds. People denying climate change point to data that says all manner of plants thrive with higher CO2 levels. Frankly, I'm excited to see what this means for my vegetable garden. More seriously, though, if we concern ourselves with how many acres we pave, instead of how many electric cars we put on the road, we just might make more of a difference. Once again, we tend to ignore the real social issues we need to address. 

Finally, the climate change debate has taken our natural fear of change, and projected it onto the ultimate global level. As humans, we naturally fear change. The idea of Shismaref falling into the ocean concerns us and appeals to our natural human pathos. But things change. I'm reminded of this every time I look at the mountains. Dramatic changes in tectonic plates and glacial movement created what I see all around me. Our planet changes, and that's ok. To think that we can somehow keep the planet the same, because we are afraid of change, seems a little silly. 

Of course, this is not to say that we should not have empathy for the people affected by rising sea levels. We should. But it should be part of a broader social discourse on our lifestyles and our future as the human race. 

A power grab?
Finally, I cannot address any social issue as large as climate change without considering how it affects the distribution of power both locally and globally. I don't think that there is some sort of grand conspiracy afoot by industry and government. However, I do think that power always seeks more power, and that many different people serve to gain by mass global panic about climate change. 

I can think of two recent examples of this sort of thing:
The "cash for clunkers" program did two very important things for the economy: it bolstered the bottom line of auto manufacterers and it created an incentive for us to consume more. Under the guise of more "fuel effecient vehicles" the government and industry, in a beautifully orchestrated ploy, successfully sold tens of thousands of vehicles. While I'm not against fuel efficient vehicles, what really bothers my is that dealerships were required to destroy the "clunker" vehicles. Thousands upon thousands of perfectly good vehicles were sent to the scrap yard under a government program. This essentially means that the federal government has increasingly sought to intentionally manipulate consumer behavior. (In all honesty, the gov't has been doing this for a long time. Think farm subsidies.) In Conclusion: