Global Warming - Reactive Recycling vs. Proactive Adaptation

So California is banning incandescent light bulbs. They are inefficient light sources and expensive, so it's a good thing. But what impact will this have on global warming? If all the bulbs in California were replaced with CFLs would that offset the amount of CO2 expended by coal mine fires in SE Asia & China? All the "feel good" hoopla amounts to less than 1% of the impact of a growing coal & oil world wide economy. Add don't forget the Tata Nanocars in India.

If reducing carbon footprints is a pointless do-gooder spin, then what should we be doing?

How about engineering the adaptation of inevitable warmer climates in two major categories: prediction and amelioration. Over the next fifty years any attempt to reduce global warming through CO2 reductions will not reduce the actual increase already underway, only the ultimate rate of increase. But we have time to mitigate the impact.

Over the next 100 to 200 years, there may be engineering solutions on a global scale that could ameliorate the cause - a global thermostat in essence - to regulate global temperatures. How about self-replicating/repairing nano-structures in fixed orbits. Block enough solar energy at the equator to lower temperatures by 1 or 2 degrees C. Equatorial sunglasses!

By the way, if the Yellowstone Caldera explodes (it's about 50,000 years overdue) the ash and sulfuric acid will global lower temperatures to sub-freezing for several years. Global warming will cease to be a worry since Mankind and animal kind will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Global Warming