Many of us do not decry "global warming," or "climate change," as it is cunningly called now to hedge all bets. What we decry is the assertion of human influence to the degree it is forecast.
It is pure human arrogance to assume that we have influences on the environment to the degree which "scientists," many of whom -- and I do not know you so I cannot place you in this catergory -- are policy makers with no real scientific backgrounds, or people who stand to profit (that evil word that the same people hold in such disdain) from the proliferation of the "science" (*ahem* Gore.)
The Earth has its own ways to deal with our "abuses," short of nuclear fallout, which it can still handle over the course of a few hundred years. This planet and its ecosystem has survived numerous mass extinctions and ours will be no different. We may pollute ourselves off of this planet, but we will certainly not destroy environment to any point which it cannot overcome.
That is in no way meant to excuse our excess. There exists a good portion of our 6.6 billion people who are wasteful, either with malice or ignorance. The ignorant ones we can reach through education and information. The malicious ones will simply continue to pay more for what they use, to the point that either they stop overuse or we decide that forcing them to stop is bad for their self-esteem and find some way to subsidize them.
But the rest of us are conservationalists. We understand clearly what it means to conserve and we avoid waste as much as possible, some at all costs. Unlike those who hypocritically preach this "science" without themselves practicing what they, well, preach, telling us we all need to sacrifice and go without while they do not.
Another part of this human arrogance is the assumption that we can do anything to control large-scale changes in our environment. We have influence over local environments, such as a large parking lot increasing localized temperatures, but time and time again (I have read them but have no citations readily available; you probably have better and easier access to them, anyway,) studies have shown that these effects are localized only, and have negligible effect on the entire system as a whole. The butterfly-hurricane effect requires more butterflies than we have on the planet.
And worse, the goals of 80% reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions is unrealistic. First off, it assumes the amount of carbon-dioxide introduced into the atmosphere is 80% excess. The 80% mark returns us to pre-industrial levels when not only did we have less industry, but fewer people. This "goal" sets an arbitrary and artificial limit on what we as a country can produce, and exceeding that limit costs more, which further removes incentives to excel at production. In turn, the needs of society are not met, that is supply cannot meet the demand, and prices necessarily increase. Secondly, it assumes that carbon dioxide, being the fifth most abundant component of the greenhouse gases, is primarily causal to climate change, completely ignoring the effects that the more abundant water vapor has.
Even worse is the current G8 plan is to force already industrialized countries to self-regulate to this 80% reduction, while developing countries are not required to enforce any limitations. This would allow undeveloped countries to essentially do exactly what developed countries are considered evil for doing. Developing countries are allowed to "catch up" to developed nations without being held to efficiency standards enforced on their developmental superiors who had an "unfair" head start on them.
Developed industries, not countries, should instead be encouraged to reduce waste, to allow them an opportunity to find the way on their own without being forced into immediate failure. Developing industries will be stronger and more competitive in the long run if they are held to conservationalist standard from the get-go. If a foreign industry is more attractive in terms of environmental responsibility, and can at the same time produce a quality product, that industry will have a competitive advantage against domestic industry, and domestic industry will be forced to play catch-up themselves.
Given the economic effects involved with arbitrary and artificial limits on production, the end result is to set a limit, or eliminate altogether, the creation of wealth in developed countries, instead shifting wealth to developing nations. This is welfare on a global scale, and undesirable to any society which wishes to see itself succeed and prosper.
And that is not greedy. Look at what this greedy, capitalist country has done over the years. Billions of dollars in foreign aid and charity, disaster aid, peace-time recovery, foreign national security, elimination of tyranny abroad. As a society we provide support and shelter for those who have none through private and religious organizations, and even individual support.
And, yes, our government has made some stupid mistakes in the past -- no government has not done so and I will not entertain and invalid argument which nullifies our position due to past poor judgment. Our capitalist standards allow for independent corporations to involve themselves and invest in developing countries in terms of technology, medical advances, and so on. Our governmental structure as introduced by our founders does not preclude our component industries from involving themselves with anyone in the world, except those who wish to destroy us.
And in terms of governments making mistakes, we must consider the immediate example of the representatives of the people who are blatantly ignoring the wishes of the people represented, even the constituent members of their own political party. The actions will in turn be the downfall of the very country they purport to serve.
Paris, because she needs a break, too.