[ProtectOurFreedom]

... the most severe impacts could be avoided through energy efficiency and investment in cleaner technologies.

This is pure BS. Many of the energy efficiency gains were captured in the '80s and '90s, and the remaining gains from energy efficiency will cost a lot more. Even if we could improve energy efficiency of all end-uses by 50%, that would be wiped out in less than 10 years due to population growth and the rapid modernization and industrialization of China and India. If "cleaner technologies" included the nuclear option, then we would be able to put a cap on CO2, but not until then.

What can cities do? Absolutely NOTHING!

[SteamShovel]

Many of the energy efficiency gains were captured in the '80s and '90s, and the remaining gains from energy efficiency will cost a lot more.

The enviro-mentals don't even comprehend the law of diminishing returns.

[mc5cents]

then we would be able to put a cap on CO2

Why should we put a cap on C02? Why is C02 a bad thing? Would someone explain that to me. I think that the link between C02 and so-called global warming is specious. From what I have read it is the other way around, i.e. global warming increases the release of C02 from oceans, trees etc. Wrong?