Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are
absolutely correct, and that *at projected rates of increase* in CO2 levels,
a major catastrophy looms on the horizon about 50-100 years from now. Is
there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected
rates?

Clearly his model depends entirely upon a world which continues to exploit
fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. But the fact is that the world
is already seeking alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons,
both socio-political and environmental. Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen
are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels,
with it being entirely likely that within a 50 year period most developed
nations will no longer depend upon coal and oil to meet their energy
demands.

It is possible that some of this development is in response to cries of
catastrophic Global Climate Change in our future. But equally important is
the view that the world will run out of oil, so humanity is seeking
alternatives. A world which does not rely upon the exploitation of oil
reserves in highly-volatile regions where the West is not welcome will be
not only cleaner, having less negative impact upon the environment, but also
safer as we will have no reason to exploit those middle-eastern oil
reserves.

But just as important and significant is that as we shift away from
hydrocarbon-based fuels, the impact of man-made CO2 will become virtually
meaningless. And this is the direction in which we are already heading --
making Al Gore's demands of restricting, regulating and taxing CO2 emissions
in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary.