The 9/06 Scientific American special issue was about global warming. I haven't finished it, but the take-away so far is that it's feasible to keep CO2 in the human-evolutionary-history range (less than 500 ppm).
I haven't finished it, but the take-away so far is that it's feasible to keep CO2 in the human-evolutionary-history range -- but with near-term technology it would require an unprecedented amount of international cooperation and human vision. It is most unfortunate that while we may be running out of oil, but we have a century of coal to burn.
Greg Mankiw tells us why that cooperation won't happen. The first 50 years or so simply are expected to be not so bad for China or the US -- though I suspect they don't know the moisture distribution effects. Certainly in the Twin Cities, where we're on the leading edge of mainland US climate transition, most people like the almost snowless winters. (I hate them of course, what do you do with the kids!? Besides, I like to ski and skate.)
We will need a blooming technological miracle. Even if the US doesn't do to badly for the first 25 years, I think things change above 500 ppm.
Maybe our quantum-computer heirs will find the planet tolerable ...
Update 9/7/06: Oh, wait, it's worse.