More recently, many experts, among them the authors of a World Bank study, have indicated that the warming limit is more likely to be in the four degree Celcius range, twice of what was originally thought. The consequences of a four degree increase would be much more devastating that may include: more widespread inundation of coastal cities, increased risk for food production leading to higher malnutrition rates, dry regions becoming drier & wet ones wetter, unprecedented heat waves (especially in the Tropics), substantially exacerbated water scarcity (especially in already dry regions), increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones, and irreversible loss of biodiversity.

There are no clear cut solutions to the problem of global warming; one can only take steps to mitigate its future impact. Effective mitigation would entail a significant and rapid reduction in carbon dioxide emissions on a worldwide scale. The level of carbon dioxide reduction required for effective mitigation is probably impractical or even impossible to achieve given the current and projected energy needs of the world economy so intricately dependet on fossil fuels. China, the world's most populous nation, projects their carbon use to level off by 2030, and other developing nations look to the future for economic propserity that entails increased carbon consumption. Any progress in alternative fuels is a welcome sign, but the prospects of significant reduction in carbon emissions on a world scale are meager at best. According to some estimates, we may have crossed the point of no return, wherein global warming will continue to accelerate in spite of our best efforts for mitigation. The ecomonic well-being of consumers is, of course, a desirable goal, but since it entails greater consumption of fossil fuel energy in prticular, it is clearly contrary to the goal of curtailing global warming. We are thus caught in a Catch 22, in which a much desired economic betterment of world population is contrary to the goal of countering climate change. We may need to pick our priorities: try to limit the impact of climate change by reducing consumption, and promote economic frugality or continue head-long on the path of material consumerism. Of course, the latter is good for economic prosperity, but dangerously favorable to global warming leading to an unbearably hot planet. The choice must be made now, not in fifteen or twenty years.