Summary

Isn't it noteworthy that an agreement reached in the 1990's to combat climate change has triggered to this day so much conflict (with strong deniers of the existence of the problem and militant supporters of the need to address the issue)? Are the temperature increases over the last decade an indication that global warming is finally catching up with us? Or are the paltry changes in our energy matrixes and policies an indication of failure of the decarbonization effort, or the inherent limitations of human endeavors to address emerging global issues? Perhaps both obviously contradictory postures may signal that the discussion has become overly ideologized, and thus impervious to proper diagnoses that provide technically sound answers for effective response to the issue.

The current discussion is loaded with partial and often poorly thought-out responses. Economic problems would be solved with more efficiency and growth; environmental concerns with more incentives and market signals - or others may argue for more controls, if not downright banning of coal, gas and any form of hydrocarbons, and their substitution by renewables to decidedly reduce emissions. Everyone in love with their own answers and solutions. The time is ripe to put questions to the forefront, subjecting answers and solutions to scrutiny and review of evidence. As long as we maintain our infatuation with questions and not answers, there is hope. After all, responses are transitory; the questions, permanent.

Similarly, the empirical evidence of greenhouse emissions is equally unclear, leading to unsettled discussions whether investments and policy actions will lead to internationally agreed goals. This article summarizes the main statistical trends, to disentangle the different outcomes and range of projections, and identify possible causes and courses of action to achieve more effective results.