Those who have been paying any attention to Washington these days know that the 2012 election is now the principal concern of Congress and our two major parties, Republicans and Democrats. Sure, they may claim the battle is/was about raising the Debt Limit, an absolute necessity so the nation doesn't default on its bills, but it is really about making the other Party look bad, about ego, power, and the future of the Obama Administration. No one is paying much attention to developing thoughtful answers to the basic problems that face our nation (listed in last month's column) and perhaps our civilization. The most important of these, long term, and the one receiving essentially no serious attention, is the matter of carbon emissions, which cause global warming, leading to climate disruption, and eventually to water and food shortages, mass migrations, violence, and social upheaval.

In a way you can't blame Congress; we voters are not pushing them on the issue, and we have many excuses, such as:

"It isn't really happening."

"The scientists are divided."

"It's a plot of the Left."

"We can't afford to do anything about it." And the most irresponsible of all:

"It won't happen until after I'm gone."

The facts are clear and stark. The Earth is habitable because ultraviolet light from the sun penetrates the atmosphere and warms the earth's surface. That warmed surface radiates heat back into space in the form of infrared rays; otherwise the Earth would heat up far beyond a habitable temperature. But the escaping infrared rays are impeded by so-called greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in the atmosphere, the most influential being carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. The more of those in the atmosphere, the hotter the Earth's surface must become to force out enough heat to bring about balance.

There are also other conditions affecting global temperature and climate – varying solar activity, and cyclical changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit, but these have less impact, and cannot explain what we are seeing – melting glaciers and arctic sea ice, rising sea levels, and bleaching of coral reefs.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen steadily from a pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to 385 ppm today. The causes include deforestation, but mostly the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas. Recent years have been the hottest on record, and temperatures are headed higher, even if emissions are stabilized, because the oceans warm slowly, delaying the final effect of today's GHG concentration for decades.

This trend is accelerated by global population growth from 2 billion in the 1920s to 7 billion today, their impact greatly multiplied by the industrialization of China, India and Southeast Asia. For example, in 1930s the world burned about 4 million barrels of oil per day. Today's figure is about 80 million barrels. Another example: China now burns almost half of the coal the world consumes today, China's use up 77% in just seven years. On a per capita basis, however, the US remains the largest emitter of CO2.

Clearly we are on a runaway train headed for disaster within a generation. The US is the leading cause of creating the problem, and is doing precious little about it. Understanding the threat is not new. Some 22 years ago Purple had an office next to Dr. Robert Repetto, a PhD economist at the World Resources Institute. Bob was writing a paper on Climate Change. His solution: put a tax on carbon emissions, and use the proceeds to reduce the Social Security tax, a tax on employment. His reasoning: "Tax the 'bads' (CO2 emissions), and lower the tax on the 'goods' (employment)."

To some, Bob's concerns seemed unconventional – after all, he played shortstop lefthanded on our softball team.

Seriously, think about asking the next candidate who wants your money what s/he would do about climate. Or do they all plan to keep fiddling?