Critics will claim that putting effort into short-term measures will 'inevitably' distract from grasping the nettle of a fundamental change of human lifestyle. There is undoubtedly some truth in that statement, but it is important to keep a balance here. We are dealing with a phenomenon which is occurring on a much longer timescale than we are used to dealing with. The permanent solution is not going to be achieved quickly and in the meantime our survival is threatened.

As an analogy to the situation we find ourselves in with global warming,
consider the following more familiar (shorter timescale) situation:

The timescale of a lifestyle change is so long, that we risk not being around to witness the resulting Nirvana. Even optimists can't see us effecting this transformation within 100 years, especially taking into account the likely energy demands of developing nations.

We need a two-pronged approach... a quick fix to prevent a major catastrophe in the short term, coupled with long term rethink of our entire global energy policy.

Are we Ready to Act
|As of late 2004, three things have already become apparent:

• Nations have failed to agree long-term strategy, let alone an action plan.

• The potential cost of Climate Change has already been demonstrated, and has entered the public consciousness. The political knock-on is also underway; policy makers are now in a position where they can gain kudos by 'solving' a perceived problem. This is an essential precursor of political action.

• The seriousness of our predicament is such that there is little option but to adopt the two-pronged strategy. Fix it up in the short-term, solve it in the long-term.

Indeed, how much brinkmanship do the politicians need? Clearly they have to wait long enough for the full horror of the situation to become apparent, but still act early enough that the ship doesn't sink on the way back to port - after all, in the case of the earth, there is only one ship!