Just as this article talks about some environmental ideas, from an environmentalist's view point, albeit a non-fanatical one, this one talks about it from a skeptic's view. The juxtaposition is revealing. It is worth remembering that as few as 20 years ago, the big fear was global cooling, not global warming. It is worth remembering that the science is not unanimously behind human intervention being primarily responsible. And it is further worth remembering, that they do not say this is, with today's technology, reversible. What is the point of cutting emissions if it cripples the economy (and thus slows down the development of technology) without preventing the disaster? We need that rapid technological growth if we are to ever be able to avert it. So yes, by all means, let us cut back where we can, as we can. Hybrid cars? Go for it. Better power plants? By all means. Nuclear power instead of burning coal? Sounds good — assuming we can settle the storage issues and such.
Another interesting point from the first article is that when global cooling was the concern, socialism was the cure, and capitalism the problem. Now that global warming is considered the problem, the solution and cure are the same. Excuse me, how can capitalism have caused both? In such a short time span?
From the first article, a good point about how environmentalists can work with us instead of universally against us. The development of hybrid cars is an inspiring example of such co-operation. That cannot stop there though, it needs to continue. We need human-friendly solutions to these problems. This earth is ours after all, we are the reason for it, not some accident.