Myth #1: If the US simply joins the international Kyoto Protocol, that will solve all or most of the problem.

If the US joins Kyoto, it will be better than nothing, but not by much. The Kyoto Protocol is simply a first baby-step toward reducing greenhouse gasses. Even if that agreement were honored diligently by every nation on earth, it's widely expected by climatologists that the Earth's temperature would still be on a considerable rise, at a somewhat lessened rate. Humankind's greenhouse gas emissions are now so large that much more effective measures will be needed to avert major warming.

Myth #2: It's cars that are mostly to blame.

Various estimates of American greenhouse gas production find that it is about 60 or 70 percent due to indirect use of energy, rather than direct burning of carbon-based fuels. The indirect use of energy comes from the production and transport of all the products we buy and use. (The next time you see bananas in the supermarket, think about how far away they have come from.) That means that some of the best actions for lessening climate change are to buy fewer things, buy second-hand, and buy goods that have been transported a shorter distance. Many people also don't realize that American-style home heating and home air conditioning are major culprits in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Myth #3: Politicians and engineers will solve the problem for us.

Politicians largely respond to people's wishful thinking as well as to the influence of moneyed interests. They are generally hesitant to do anything of real effectiveness to stop our civilization's production of greenhouse gasses, because--as we all suspect--it will require a major change in our current energy-limitless lifestyle. Engineers and other technology workers are similarly working for business interests that are largely catering to American people's comfort, which is dependent on massive energy use. If we are slaves of marketed comfort, then our species likely will have a very limited time on this planet. It's time for us all to start changing the way we live.

Myth #4: We can definitely avoid global warming if we start to make some changes now.

Some climatologists say that we are already at the point of no return. The effect that we've already created on the world's climate may have an inertia of decades, and thus could still set the globe in a feverish state even if we all stopped producing greenhouse gasses tomorrow. It's quite possible that the only thing we can do now is lessen the damage, and prepare for what will likely be serious changes in all regions.

Myth #5: Technology can get us out of this mess.

Remember first that technology got us into this mess. The Earth is a much bigger thing than we are, and is much more complex and fragile than we may even be able to understand. We cannot assume that technological fixes will get us out of this mess, any more than we can assume that any new drug will not have serious unanticipated side-effects, as so frequently happens. And since we only have one Earth, we can't really afford to be experimenting with it. But one simple strategy remains sure: the less we use any greenhouse-gas-producing technology, the better. Currently, that includes all our main means of transportation, and also electrification, because most electricity is currently generated by the burning of carbon-releasing fuels. Until we find truly clean energy sources, we cannot even fantasize about continuing the personal consumption of energy that Americans are accustomed to. That being said, if an inventor does come up with a magical device to pull carbon dioxide from the air, we should definitely take note. Ironically, though, we already have many such magical devices at our disposal. They're called trees. And unfortunately they are being cut down all over the world at an astounding rate as part of our human "progress." Before we try radical technological solutions, let's try radical re-forestation.

Myth #6: Carbon offsets are the answer.

In the ideal functioning of a carbon offset market, all the people in developed countries would buy carbon offsets from people in third-world countries, in order to keep them from adopting the ridiculously extravagant consumption patterns that we have fallen into. But there are two problems with this. First, the current average world production of greenhouse gasses is already way higher than it should be, and we need to drastically reduce that average, which logically requires that we in developed countries must change our extravagant lifestyle to reduce overall carbon production. Second, if people in third-world countries receive such payment for offsets, what would they spend their new-found money on? Given patterns in other areas of the world in the last century, they would likely be tempted to spend it on fossil-fuel-burning transportation, climate-controlled houses, and the same sort of manufactured and imported goods that we are addicted to; in other words, the same sources of the basic greenhouse problem. Without a widening ethos of living simply with little energy use, carbon offsets and other market approaches to global warming--though they are probably helpful--will never be enough.

Myth #7: Long-distance travel can still be a normal part of our life.

Travel can be a normal part of your life now simply because you are not paying for the true environmental consequences of it. The fact is that 10,000 miles traveled by airplane--per just one seat on the airplane--is roughly equivalent to the entire greenhouse-gas production of the average person in the world for an entire year (which is about 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide). And that yearly average is already far too much for the globe to handle. To put that in perspective, a very common round trip flight from Seattle to Tokyo is close to 10,000 miles. Sure, you can now purchase carbon offsets to alleviate the damage, but in the long term, that will do almost nothing to solve the root problem: massive overconsumption.

Myth #8: My Prius will absolve me of responsibility.

This would be true only if you keep it in the garage most of the time. Sure, a Prius is much better than a typical car in the US, but given the average driving of 12,000 miles per year in the US, the Prius will produce in that time about 6,000 pounds of carbon dioxide. Just in driving your Prius, you are likely emitting close to the average world citizen's total emissions for all activities (see Myth #6).

Myth #9: Electric cars are a good answer to global warming.

In terms of climate change, battery-powered electric cars are only as good as the electricity used to charge them. Typical electricity is generated by burning natural gas, coal, or other carbon-based fuels. Average-sized electric cars use about 0.4 killowatt hours per mile of electricity, which in most regions of the US will produce about 0.6 pounds of carbon dioxide per mile, roughly 60% of what an average gasoline car produces. Electric cars are helpful only if they are charged by clean electrical sources such as hydro, solar, or wind power, which are currently not typical in most regions. Given the lucky abundance of hydropower in Washington state, electric cars happen to be a rather good option here.

Myth #10: Space exploration and satellite technology is something we can't do without.

In fact, if we are serious about doing anything about global warming, we should question any major source of combustion, including rocket-propelled transportation, which spews vapors into the highest parts of the atmosphere with little-understood effects. If we aren't serious about averting climate change, then ironically our last hope for survival may be eventually to rocket-propel the last few surviving humans away from an overheating earth, like in a bad science fiction movie. The only practical motive for further space exploration is to extend our extractive industries to the Moon and Mars. We've got more than enough of what we need here. Let's not blow it all by making clever but reckless "advances." As for satellite technology, we lived fine without it for thousands of years, and we could certainly do the same again.

Myth #11: People can address global warming by working for the protection of species and habitat.

I do hate saying this, but personal time and resources spent on the preservation of individual species and local habitat is probably mostly wasted. The facts are that warming is already happening, is a huge thing beyond any immediate control, is already changing local climates, and is already rendering many species extinct (and inevitably many more including possibly ourselves). If you care about any form of earthly life at all, probably the best thing you can do is work to drastically reduce the climate impact of humans (including yourself) in the developed countries, an impact which is mostly due to our copious use of goods and fuels.

Myth #12: Every region on Earth is getting warmer.

Temperature changes are occurring in far latitudes to a much greater degree than in tropical latitudes. Furthermore, some regions--though not many--are actually recording temperature declines. For this reason, the term "climate change" is perhaps more accurate than "global warming".

Myth #13: In order to really address global warming, we'll have to undertake a joyless, spartan, uncomfortable lifestyle.

For too many people nowadays, the concept of "joy" is apparently dependent on consuming vast amounts of energy through all sorts of gadgets, machines, home climate control, exotic vacation travel, and imported products. While it's true that we'll need to change that lifestyle considerably, there is no need for the change to be joyless. In fact, if people travel less and live more simply, efficiently, and locally, we'll likely see a closer social life in households and neighborhoods. That can be a source of a far better joy.

Myth #14: Changing our lifestyle will have a negative impact on the economy.

True, living more simply and efficiently would likely require many adjustments for people in developed countries, but it would also likely require less spending, because fewer resources would be used. And as jobs related to fossil-fuel industry and long-distance transport dwindle, other jobs related to renewable energy, local production, and re-use or repair of products would increase. Because such changes will result in a lot of temporary job dislocations, we should--as a society--take care to construct a much better social safety net than we currently have. In any case, the obvious main concern is our habitat, not the stability of the economy. We can revive a lost economy if our habitat is still around, but not vice versa.

Myth #15: There is no doubt about the cause and effects of global warming.